re-lighting an almost extinguished fuse - Celtic nail bombs.
Discussion
Kermit power said:
Leithen said:
Kermit power said:
Leithen said:
England is of course welcome to adopt our outstanding legal, education and health systems any time they like. It's a wonder it hasn't happened sooner.
That would be lovely, except there isn't the money to pay for it. You haven't got the money to pay for it either.
The difference is that you get yours paid for. By us.
Christ knows why.
Let's see some cold facts before you continue your delusive drivel.
Mojocvh said:
And what "Scottish" MP's would that be then, what party(s) do they belong to and what did they actually vote on?
Let's see some cold facts before you continue your delusive drivel.
2005 General Election. Labour won with a majority of 66 seats across the UK as a whole.Let's see some cold facts before you continue your delusive drivel.
Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Ah - we're back to the "West Lothian Question". Goodness I miss Tam Dalyell.
So we're really talking about a political system issue, not one pertaining to the legal, education or health systems.
And guess what, the vast majority of Scots think it's daft too, and would happily see procedures changed so that only those representing constituents affected by change, get to vote on it. Some Scots see the best solution to this as independence, the majority however still appear to support the Union and would therefore like to see Westminster parliamentary changes.
And it's clearly in the power of Westminster to do this - just like the reform of the second chamber, it just needs to get up off it's arse and make the changes. That it hasn't isn't some Scottish conspiracy, merely vested interest. It also to be fair, isn't the simplest of issues to finesse - there isn't yet a stand out solution, hence "The West Lothian Question".
So we're really talking about a political system issue, not one pertaining to the legal, education or health systems.
And guess what, the vast majority of Scots think it's daft too, and would happily see procedures changed so that only those representing constituents affected by change, get to vote on it. Some Scots see the best solution to this as independence, the majority however still appear to support the Union and would therefore like to see Westminster parliamentary changes.
And it's clearly in the power of Westminster to do this - just like the reform of the second chamber, it just needs to get up off it's arse and make the changes. That it hasn't isn't some Scottish conspiracy, merely vested interest. It also to be fair, isn't the simplest of issues to finesse - there isn't yet a stand out solution, hence "The West Lothian Question".
Kermit power said:
2005 General Election. Labour won with a majority of 66 seats across the UK as a whole.
Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Wait a minuteTaking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Kermit power said:
accept that you (collective again) are part of the UK, stop whinging and get on with being part of the UK.
You really do hate scotland don't youWere you abused by a man wearing a skirt?
Edited by thinfourth2 on Thursday 21st April 17:40
thinfourth2 said:
Kermit power said:
2005 General Election. Labour won with a majority of 66 seats across the UK as a whole.
Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Wait a minuteTaking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Kermit power said:
accept that you (collective again) are part of the UK, stop whinging and get on with being part of the UK.
You really do hate scotland don't youWere you abused by a man wearing a skirt?
If Scotland and Wales stopped whinging and got on with being a part of the UK - by which I mean abolish the Scottish parliament & Welsh assembly and adopt UK-wide laws and structures for everything - then there wouldn't be a Mid-Lothian question, and whatever laws were voted on by Scottish and Welsh MPs would impact their constituents in exactly the same way as they would impact the constituents of English MPs.
This, to me, would be perfectly fair. The only other fair option is complete independence for England, Scotland & Wales. You're welcome to try and explain why you would think anything else if you like.
I do not hate Scotland in the slightest. What I do hate is Scots (and they tend to be far worse than the Welsh) who whinge on about not having enough power when the f
ked up political system we currently have gives the English far more cause for complaint than any other part of the country.Kermit power said:
Mojocvh said:
And what "Scottish" MP's would that be then, what party(s) do they belong to and what did they actually vote on?
Let's see some cold facts before you continue your delusive drivel.
2005 General Election. Labour won with a majority of 66 seats across the UK as a whole.Let's see some cold facts before you continue your delusive drivel.
Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Kermit power said:
If Scotland and Wales stopped whinging and got on with being a part of the UK - by which I mean abolish the Scottish parliament & Welsh assembly and adopt UK-wide laws and structures for everything - then there wouldn't be a Mid-Lothian question, and whatever laws were voted on by Scottish and Welsh MPs would impact their constituents in exactly the same way as they would impact the constituents of English MPs.
This, to me, would be perfectly fair. The only other fair option is complete independence for England, Scotland & Wales. You're welcome to try and explain why you would think anything else if you like.
That would be the simplest solution, but also the daftest. Just because there was a Union of sovereign states several hundred years ago, doesn't mean that you can expect the different cultures and traditions to blend into one homogenous structure. This, to me, would be perfectly fair. The only other fair option is complete independence for England, Scotland & Wales. You're welcome to try and explain why you would think anything else if you like.
In Scotland's case, you really ought to read up on The Scottish Enlightenment . The Scottish legal system for example has a fundamentally different evolution and foundation. Just as we wouldn't impose our legal system on England, neither should England expect to do the reverse. It really is a case of one size does not fit all.
Kermit power said:
2005 General Election. Labour won with a majority of 66 seats across the UK as a whole.
Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
Instead of relying on your maths education, you could just have looked up the national breakdowns from the 2005 election. Then you wouldn't have made the mistake of only counting the Tory and Labour Scottish and Welsh MPs while ignoring the Lib Dems, everyone else and Northern Ireland.Taking England alone (given that Wales and Scotland both have their own legislative bodies to introduce and vote on bills which only affect their countries) then Labour would've lost 70 seats and the Conservatives 4, giving both parties the same number of MPs in England.
Given the above, whilst the Labour party still had a majority across the UK as a whole subsequent to the 2005 General Election, they did not have a majority in England. Both they and the Conservatives were tied on the same number of seats.
Following the 2008 Conservative by-election victory in Crewe & Nantwich, the Conservatives actually had a majority of 2 in England alone, and thus would have been in a position to actually introduce any England-only legislation being voted on for the last two years of the parliament had Scottish & Welsh MPs been discounted.
The only reason Labour was able to continue introducing legislation which only affected England after 2008 was because they had a UK-wide majority once the Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituencies were not affected by the legislation were included. I'd say at that point the way in which those Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs subsequently voted on the actual legislation is fairly academic.
I have no problem with Scottish and Welsh MPs being included in determining which party should be introducing UK-wide legislation, but for England alone, we had to put up with the clear injustice of 5 years of legislation introduced by the Labour party without a majority between 2005 and 2010. English independence (or Welsh & Scottish independence, if you prefer to look at it that way) would prevent that from happening again.
In reality, Labour won 286 English seats in 2005 - a 44 seat majority over the other parties combined and 93 ahead of the Tories on 193.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...
Both sides of the OF are an embarrassment to Scotland.
There is the potential for serious mayhem this Sunday. It's the last OF game of the season, so a potential title decider. Add to that it's the holiday weekend and the forecast is for good weather. This will mean even more alcohol consumed and even more trouble in towns up and down Scotland that will continue into Sunday afternoon and evening. Then mix in everything that's happened this season - the letterbombs being the latest chapter.
I'm a Scottish football fan but I hate what the OF fans bring to the game.
Celtic and Rangers have long banged on about leaving Scotland and joining the English league. The other scottish clubs should now get together and boot them out.
Almost all English have no concept that Scotland is genuinely a different country to England. We have a very different cultural base, going right back to the earliest people who lived here. Bar the language, England has more in commmon with France than Scotland! Scotland never really became 'latinised' as did England - we retained our Celtic/Pictish culture that has subtley infiltrated our society, even into our legal system.
On this basis, we are a country that NEEDS self rule. Let us decide our tax on oil etc. It's a nonsense that Scotland is nert provider of oil (producing more than we use) yet we pay about the highest price in Europe for fuel!
Alex Salmond and the SNP are going to win on May 5th anyway. As much as I don't like many of the SNP's policies, the party has our interests far more at heart rather than the other parties that pander to the Westminster mothership! And Alex Salmond, like him or loathe him, is about the best politician in the UK - did you see him take Peter Hain and Michael Howard apart on the recent Question Time from Liverpool - classic!
Severely off topic, I concede but needs to be said to inform some of the uninformed guff being spouted here.
And, agreed, wearing a Celtic top into the Scottish parliament is almost unbelievably stupid!
P.S. I don't think most posters here realise that Neil Lennon isn't actually Scottish!
On this basis, we are a country that NEEDS self rule. Let us decide our tax on oil etc. It's a nonsense that Scotland is nert provider of oil (producing more than we use) yet we pay about the highest price in Europe for fuel!
Alex Salmond and the SNP are going to win on May 5th anyway. As much as I don't like many of the SNP's policies, the party has our interests far more at heart rather than the other parties that pander to the Westminster mothership! And Alex Salmond, like him or loathe him, is about the best politician in the UK - did you see him take Peter Hain and Michael Howard apart on the recent Question Time from Liverpool - classic!
Severely off topic, I concede but needs to be said to inform some of the uninformed guff being spouted here.
And, agreed, wearing a Celtic top into the Scottish parliament is almost unbelievably stupid!
P.S. I don't think most posters here realise that Neil Lennon isn't actually Scottish!
Edited by ViperPict on Friday 22 April 17:38
Drive Blind said:
Both sides of the OF are an embarrassment to Scotland.
There is the potential for serious mayhem this Sunday. It's the last OF game of the season, so a potential title decider. Add to that it's the holiday weekend and the forecast is for good weather. This will mean even more alcohol consumed and even more trouble in towns up and down Scotland that will continue into Sunday afternoon and evening. Then mix in everything that's happened this season - the letterbombs being the latest chapter.
I'm a Scottish football fan but I hate what the OF fans bring to the game.
Celtic and Rangers have long banged on about leaving Scotland and joining the English league. The other scottish clubs should now get together and boot them out.
Strathclyde Police have called it 'the perfect storm'!There is the potential for serious mayhem this Sunday. It's the last OF game of the season, so a potential title decider. Add to that it's the holiday weekend and the forecast is for good weather. This will mean even more alcohol consumed and even more trouble in towns up and down Scotland that will continue into Sunday afternoon and evening. Then mix in everything that's happened this season - the letterbombs being the latest chapter.
I'm a Scottish football fan but I hate what the OF fans bring to the game.
Celtic and Rangers have long banged on about leaving Scotland and joining the English league. The other scottish clubs should now get together and boot them out.
ViperPict said:
Almost all English have no concept that Scotland is genuinely a different country to England. We have a very different cultural base, going right back to the earliest people who lived here. Bar the language, England has more in commmon with France than Scotland! Scotland never really became 'latinised' as did England - we retained our Celtic/Pictish culture that has subtley infiltrated our society, even into our legal system.
On this basis, we are a country that NEEDS self rule. Let us decide our tax on oil etc. It's a nonsense that Scotland is nert provider of oil (producing more than we use) yet we pay about the highest price in Europe for fuel!
I don't know any English people who don't want the Scots to get their independance, mainly so they'll stop bloody moaning about it all the time. Obviously the MPs in Westminster from Scottish boroughs will have to fOn this basis, we are a country that NEEDS self rule. Let us decide our tax on oil etc. It's a nonsense that Scotland is nert provider of oil (producing more than we use) yet we pay about the highest price in Europe for fuel!
k off back there though. 
ETA: missed the smiley
Edited by Dixie68 on Friday 22 April 17:55
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff