Original post by Maths TutorIf you want to be 'accurate', answer the following:
The North East = Scotland, that is, are both 'REGIONS' of the UK? Yes.
IS England then also a 'REGION' of the UK? Yes; a big one, highly-populated one, obviously.
How can the North East and England both be 'REGIONS' of the UK? Because the term region is a vague one and isn't particularly useful in this context.
Or does England have a higher status then the North East and Scotland, which according to the likes of you, are equal in status? England is another of your irrelevant regions. It will have a different status in each different context you use it in.
When was the last time the North East was a sovereign nation? In the modern context, it never has been. How is that relevant? Is Northumbria's status of 1200 years ago somehow relevant to Scotland's 300 years ago? Neither are relevant now.
If Scotland votes no in the Independence referendum, should the Scottish parliament be dissolved, so that there is no difference between the political powers of the North East and Scotland? Personally, I am against all forms of devolution above local authorities but, given we have it, I am sure we will keep it. Inhabitants of the north-east have rejected calls for a local parliament, I believe, presumably because they don't want the costs and don't feel persecuted by their fellow Britons.
After all if Scotland 'ceased to be a sovereign nation', why should it have more powers than the North East? Why indeed? The word if is not appropriate, of course. It can't cease to be a sovereign nation in the future as it already did so in 1707.
My comment was:
The North East is A PART OF ENGLAND. True. Obviously.
Scotland is a NATION in an EQUAL UNION with England. And so, in entering that union, ceased to be a sovereign nation. As did England. Equally obviously.
Are you denying those two FACTS? Then say so CLEARLY. I just made my views clear.
As for yourself, why did you shy away from your position on Cameron? I note that you didn't bother to answer the second question in my post:
"Firstly, where in your first post had you specified that? My questions were PRECISE. You DIDN"T provide PRECISE answers.
Secondly, NOW you have actually answered my first question, I agree with your position.
But I am 100% sure that HE WILL COME HERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE NO SIDE. Have you forgotten that 'every fibre in my body', or something like that, comment?
So my second question was, if he comes here to support the No side, will he have any credibility if he refuses to debate with anyone from the Yes side? Answer Yes or No, like in the referendum question." Sigh. I am equally sure he will not campaign. Your question is, therefore, hypothetical. However, if he does campaign he will neither lose nor gain credibility by debating, or not debating. Any such status change will come only from the quality of his debating or whatever other contribution he makes. The yes campaign should seek to debate with those leading the no campaign, not those peripheral to it or uninvolved in it. He has other tasks to fulfil.
If you think that Scotland has the same status as the North East of England. YOU are ignorant. Ignorant of what? You think that Scots have higher status than Englishmen or Welshmen, then? Why? Is there a context to this higher status?