This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

devolution

Reply 60

zooropa

OP

What examples?

Scottish and Welsh GDP per head are lower than England's. As are average wages.

Both the Scottish and Irish Parliaments passed the Acts of Union.

Out of force!

Reply 61

JonD

5

zooropa

What examples?

Scottish and Welsh GDP per head are lower than England's. As are average wages.

*******s. You said that Westminster policies were to blame. Please, give us a few examples of these polices. How is the general pattern in England - that the further from London you get, the lower the GDP - different from the GDP disparities between the South East and Scotland?

Reply 62

zooropa

OP

You said that Westminster policies were to blame.

They are to blame. Continuous Westminster governments have placed too much emphasis on London and the South East. This is why northern England is poorer as well.

Reply 63

JonD

5

zooropa

They are to blame. Continuous Westminster governments have placed too much emphasis on London and the South East. This is why northern England is poorer as well.

I'd be interested in your sources, since I'd like to do some background reading. Since you've not given any examples, I do fear that it's from the nationalist propaganda that followed in the wake of Braveheart.

The explanations for the north-south divide that I hear are usually based on culture: Businesses concentrate their resources on London, since that's where business has always been done best; the best people congregate in London since that's where the best work is; or, the economic disadvantages of the supposed "Scandinavian" mindset of people outside of "individualist" London.

Reply 64

Chrism

1

zooropa

Out of force!

No, they weren't. There were outside factors that influenced the vote (e.g. Scotland's economy) but they weren't forced to join the union.

Reply 65

L i b

19

zooropa

Well why should the UK be intact?

Because pragmatically in a flexible and well-designed union, there can be no case where the majority of the people would be better off under a four-state position.

The 1707 and 1801 Acts of Union were based on coercion and force. The then Scottish Parliament didn't freely consent to union with England. In 1801, Irish MP's were flagrantly bribed into accepting union with Great Britain.

It was a free vote. Better than the creation of Scotland, which was brought about by intermarrying and conquest. Anyway, regardless of their motives, the constitution of Scotland was obeyed in enacting the Union With England Act and the unpopularity of something 300 years ago is no reason to abolish it today.

technik

wales and scotland would still be poorer than england regardless...

If you include the revenue from oil in the UK Continental Shelf (Scottish waters in theory) then we're actually richer than England per capita. Admittedly this isn't due to sound judgement, but rather chance of having natural resources.

zooropa

Scotland and Wales are poorer because of the policies of continuous Westminster governments.

No, Scotland is poor because only Labour governments considered themselves able to meddle with the Scottish Office. More significantly, we are run by a socialistic cabal of local councillors and now MSPs. As a result we are a backwards, left-wing statelet with 1 in 5 people working in the public sector.

Reply 66

zooropa

OP

JonD

I'd be interested in your sources, since I'd like to do some background reading. Since you've not given any examples, I do fear that it's from the nationalist propaganda that followed in the wake of Braveheart.

You've cited no sources to substanitate your views. All you've collectively said are that the UK deserves to be intact because of "tradition" and "if it's not broken don't fix it".

The explanations for the north-south divide that I hear are usually based on culture: Businesses concentrate their resources on London, since that's where business has always been done best; the best people congregate in London since that's where the best work is; or, the economic disadvantages of the supposed "Scandinavian" mindset of people outside of "individualist" London.

The North-South divide exists because of the policies of British governments. I take it you aren't Scottish, nor care whether Scotland progresses or not. The fact is Scotland would be richer if if had the means to compete for business with England and other countries. It's economically dangerous to have one area of a country as your economic powerhouse.

Because pragmatically in a flexible and well-designed union, there can be no case where the majority of the people would be better off under a four-state position.

Majority? What do you mean by this?

Reply 67

JonD

5

zooropa

You've cited no sources to substanitate your views. All you've collectively said are that the UK deserves to be intact because of "tradition" and "if it's not broken don't fix it".

I "collectively" said something? Ah.. yes, me and me and me. All of me. I haven't made any such assertion. Except, when I asked for you to justify your crazy talk. Does your crazy talk have any substance? Are you changing the subject in order to evade the question? I think the latter is a Yes. You either came to the conclusion out of two ways: (1) Read hours and hours worth of detailed analysis, (2) Jumped on the Scots nationalist bandwagon when it was cool, and soaked up all the false claims of populists. (In case you're still fashion minded: It's now about as cool as Gibson's mullet.)

The North-South divide exists because of the policies of British governments. I take it you aren't Scottish, nor care whether Scotland progresses or not. The fact is Scotland would be richer if if had the means to compete for business with England and other countries. It's economically dangerous to have one area of a country as your economic powerhouse.

Nope, but I've lived in northern england for most of my life, so can offer plenty of nice, sweet, anecdotal evidence for those cultural claims. I'm not sure about their real validity, but you haven't offered much for your westminster theory either. Here, it's common sense here that London is the best place to run a business, because it's the capital and heavily populated; it's also common sense that it's the best place to find good work. We would surely have abandoned these hills years ago, if we didn't tend to regard Londoners as self-centred bores. I think most the other northerners on here will agree this is standard stuff. It's like folk-lore.

You still haven't given an example of one of these demonic anti-scotland policies.

Reply 68

ChemistBoy

16

At the end of the day, politcal representation in this country has always been unfair, why on earth would conservatives want to change that?

A complete overhaul of not just our system of government but the way in which our elections work is the only route to achieving politcal equality and true democracy. Whether or not devolution is part of that depends upon its nature. Currently devolution is actually back door centralisation - more powers are being stripped from local councils to give to these new devolved assemblies than are being handed down by westminster. The vote on devolution in the north east amply displayed the contempt the public have for such proposals.

devolution

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you