goo.gl/7XaN8r (Sky News)
He's got a point,even if he is just having a bit of fun. The SNP is as anti-English as it is pro-Scotland, and paints the picture that if the English yoke is cast off then everything will be marvellous. It seems to be more of a power cult than anything else.
I don't think I could vote for them even if I lived there and wanted to see independence.
|
Starkey is a historian why his obsession with the Nazis and Hitler?
I think the Scots are level headed enough to know what they want regarding their future.
|
>> I think the Scots are level headed enough to know what they want regarding their
>> future.
>>
Most are, but there have long been some for whom England and the English are the cause of every problem, in the same way as there are some all over for whom blacks, jews, muslims or whoever are the cause of everything.
Starkey expressed it very badly but hate on the basis of race, nationality, religion or whatever is just as wrong now as it always has been
|
>>I think the Scots are level headed enough to know what they want regarding their future.
I'm not sure about that Dutchie (and the same would apply to the English, and the British as a whole - wait for the EU 'out' campaign). The rallying calls of the SNP campaign included a lot of pure rhetoric about being ruled from Westminster, never having elected a Tory government etc., any of which could apply to Yorkshire which has more people and fewer MPs.
Scotland is a favoured part of the UK. It has a strong national (or regional, if you wish) identity and that affiliation has in my opinion been hijacked by the SNP - their pitch translates to "if you are pro-Scottish you should be pro-SNP, if you aren't pro SNP then you are anti-Scottish".
The SNP wants independence from the UK but clings to the EU, which is ultimately about political union, in which they will be ruled from further away than Westminster and have proportionately less representation. That sounds anti-English to me.
The SNP has voted to join NATO but only if nuclear weapons are removed from Scotland (to some other NATO country, not the Moon presumably).
They offer nothing but national pride, getting rid of the English, and some vague assumptions that the oil will make everything OK.
To be kind to them they are muddled and too stirred by nationalism to be objective or fit for government. Either that, or a bunch of crooks.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 16 Jun 15 at 11:48
|
Perhaps they should change their name to the Scottish National Socialist Party.
^_^
|
The words "Sturgeon Youth" sound like a young fish rather than a bunch of committed fanatics.
Starkey exaggerates - as usual.
|
>> The words "Sturgeon Youth" sound like a young fish rather than a bunch of committed
>> fanatics.
>> Starkey exaggerates - as usual.
Absolutely. He's being satirical in part I assume, or trying to be, the comparison of the flags can only be mischief.
The fact that the SNP has dignified his comments with a serious and angry response worries me slightly!
Interesting observations here from a blog - I don't know the writer, but it makes some nice points and the quotes from Mein Kampf are quite apposite.
goo.gl/6o3hX3
|
For the most part the SNP has been accepted as a powerful mainstream party even if we don't all agree with their mission statement.
But if there was an English version, e.g the BNP. and it rose to power and prominence in the same way, there'd be hell to pay and the mainstream media would be falling over themselves to berate it.
|
Yes, we've probably been too nice to them.
56 MPS at Westminster who want to break up the country is not conducive to a well-functioning parliament especially if they should ever hold the balance of power.
|
|
There's a difference between the SNP's 'defensive' nationalism, appropriate to a (cough) provincial minority, and the sort of overbearing nationalism the BNP favours for the majority. Seems clear enough to me that the SNP is generally innocent of bad intentions, while the BNP, er, isn't.
|
>> There's a difference between the SNP's 'defensive' nationalism, appropriate to a (cough) provincial minority, and
>> the sort of overbearing nationalism the BNP favours for the majority. Seems clear enough to
>> me that the SNP is generally innocent of bad intentions, while the BNP, er, isn't.
>>
Absolutely.
I'm not denying Scotland has its share of 'anglophobes', who are vehemently anti English and who may find the SNP appealing. But to suggest that view is somehow mainstream and the prime mover in SNP policy is nonsense on stilts.
There is a perfectly respectable viewpoint the says Scotland has been disadvantaged over many years by its constitutional relationship with Westminster and Whitehall - the British Government. Even post devolution there have been many examples of policy proposals put forward without apparent thought of the impact on Scotland - the British Bill of Rights could be seen in that way. Whitehall can be astonishingly cack-handed over cross border bodies.
That's a quite different thing from blaming the English as a race.
|
>> There is a perfectly respectable viewpoint the says Scotland has been disadvantaged over many years
>> by its constitutional relationship with Westminster and Whitehall - the British Government.
Absolutely correct. There is also a perfectly respectable viewpoint the says England has been disadvantaged over many years by the Barnett Formula(1), and by the fact that the devolution settlement was asymetric (see "West Lothian Question"(2)).
It's no good claiming that there was no great demand for English devolution. The point is that if Scotland had it, and Wales had it, then England had to have it - otherwise it was lopsided and would be bound to cause resentment eventually.
The then Shadow Sec of State for Scotland, George Robertson, said in 1995:
"Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead".
Well, that worked out well, didn't it?
(1) Barnett Formula
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula - "Barnett himself has called it a "terrible mistake""
(2) West Lothian Question
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
|
>> It's no good claiming that there was no great demand for English devolution. The point
>> is that if Scotland had it, and Wales had it, then England had to have
>> it - otherwise it was lopsided and would be bound to cause resentment eventually.
Absolutely. Which is why we need some sort of Constitutional Convention to resolve West Lothian/English Votes English Laws question properly. Trying to produce a solution to that using the FPTP Westminster Parliament when all three devolved assemblies use PR is going to cause more resentment.
|
Wouldn't the simplest solution just be to treat the UK as one fairly modestly sized nation?
The problem with separatism is that it is essentially 'fragmentationism', with no real, present-day, logic to where it should start and end.
With hindsight devolution was probably a mistake. You don't rid yourself of a blackmailer by paying him.
|
>> With hindsight devolution was probably a mistake.
With hindsight everything eventually becomes a mistake. It may have been a good idea at the time and necessary. But times change, the march of technological progress brings new requirements, adjustments are made, and so it goes on, monkeying away down through the ages, good bits and bad bits all entangled...
Keeps it interesting. Just think how boring an orderly world and orderly history would be.
|
>> Wouldn't the simplest solution just be to treat the UK as one fairly modestly sized
>> nation?
>>
>> The problem with separatism is that it is essentially 'fragmentationism', with no real, present-day, logic
>> to where it should start and end.
Which view of course encapsulates the reason why devolution and nationalism 'got legs'. The problem with the one modestly sized nation model is that in this case a massive chunk of the population live in one part of it and furthermore in the South Est corner of that one part. Inevitable result is a nation governed according to the views prevalent in that corner - more or less UK position until 1998/9.
Telling those in the remote parts they can in effect 'like it or lump it' tends to drive separatism.
|
Quite. Why should the Celtic fringes be lumped into a nation in which the English are the majority, when their histories and instincts tell them that they are ethnically distinct nations? After all they were effectively separate nations until modern communications came along to give more power to the absolutist elbow of the majority.
Personally I think these identities are precious and should be respected, yes, even Perro's Cornish elves. Everyone seems grown-up enough not to make unnecessary waves. Keep this stuff alive. It tells us who we are.
|
What rot. We are a small country. Scottish nationalism on its current scale is a result of SNP propaganda mainly demonising the "ENglish" government in which Scots have as much - more actually - say as anybody else.
Nothing wrong with Scottish identity but the Highlands and Islands probably have less in common with Edinburgh than Edinburgh does with London. or Glasgow does with Sheffield.
Most of the population lives in the central belt anyway.
The "problem" of being governed from the South East corner is imaginary. Every country governs from somewhere and most of them have more distant "remote" bits than we do.
As for England as a region...if it works for Scotland, it should work for the Yorkshire and the North East which has a materially higher population than Scotland, homogeneous. and has no more in common wi' London than the Jocks do.
|
>> What rot. We are a small country. Scottish nationalism on its current scale is a result of SNP propaganda mainly demonising the "ENglish" government in which Scots have as much - more actually - say as anybody else.
Yeah, but so what? People should have their say and are having it. There's absolutely no risk of the Jocks getting a political advantage over the English in a risky way. That's an absurd idea. Things go this way and that all the time, and there are always Double-Take Brothers to overreact and jump sky high. Pathetic.
|
I'll take what comes AC.
I just don't acknowledge the point of it. It's really just divisive nit picking nationalists stirring up the mob, when they already have the same say as any other 5 million people, plus an extra 10% or so in terms of MPs:population. They all have better things to do if they only stopped to think about it.
But people will insist on having their own opinions, even if they get them from manipulative trouble-makers who are taking their seats in the government of a country they seek to destroy.
|
>> trouble-makers who are taking their seats in the government of a country they seek to destroy.
Ah, sawing through the branch they're sitting on? Do me a favour.
Everyone happily living it up in Westminster, claws sheathed for the time being. A game really. You can tell by the smirks on their boats...
|
Ain't it weird how the firmest UK Unionists are always the out-there anti-EU Unionists.
This Union good, that Union bad. Funny.
I like both Unions, for the same reasons. Stronger together. More common interests than different. That sort of schemozzle.
Long live the United Republic of Europe.
|
>>Ain't it weird how the firmest UK Unionists are always the out-there anti-EU Unionists
Not strange at all really - many of those will just be resistant to what they see as unnecessary change, which means keeping the union and UK sovereignty - in that respect the two positions are entirely consistent.
In principle, I agree with closer union. I just think it is going to be very difficult successfully to unite the 28 countries politically. The diversity is on another level to the supposed cultural differences between Scotland and England. The 28 could be governed as one but a huge amount of time and energy will be wasted on coordination and intra-union disputes.
If we are having trouble keeping Scotland with us, contiguous and with a common language, how hard is it going to be to keep everybody in Europe happy?
It's interesting to contemplate - if Scotland separates and then both it and the UK end up as part of the USE, they won't have achieved much more than sticking two fingers up to the English, which is what the SNP story comes down to.
Neither do I really want regional devolution within England. It's just backward. The point about Yorkshire independence is that it would be divisive, inefficient and unnecessary, and that it makes as much sense as Scottish independence.
The EU would have to accept the Queen as sovereign of course:)
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 17 Jun 15 at 10:19
|
>> many of those will just be resistant to what
>> they see as unnecessary change, which means keeping the union and UK sovereignty
Same applies to leaving the EU, surely? Unnecessary change? Ah, but don't tell me. That would be necessary change, right?
|
>> >> many of those will just be resistant to what
>> >> they see as unnecessary change, which means keeping the union and UK sovereignty
>>
>> Same applies to leaving the EU, surely? Unnecessary change? Ah, but don't tell me. That
>> would be necessary change, right?
>>
You are presenting a false argument, as you well know.
The upcoming referendum on the EU will not be "Change" (leaving the EU) versus "Status Quo" (staying in the EU).
It will be a choice between two sorts of change.
1) Leave the EU
2) Stay in the EU and continue to the goal of "Ever Closer Union" (which is enshrined in treaty)
I don't want either option. How on earth should I vote?
|
>> I don't want either option. How on earth should I vote?
For whichever you see as least worse, as is usually the case for most people voting in elections.
|
>>It will be a choice between two sorts of change.
And following what Al says, if those become our choices, I find 2) much more offensive than 1)
Although 1) is not good, it is less worse.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 17 Jun 15 at 10:57
|
>> >>It will be a choice between two sorts of change.
>>
>> And following what Al says, if those become our choices, I find 2) much more
>> offensive than 1)
>>
>> Although 1) is not good, it is less worse.
>>
Sadly, I feel that you may be right.
But surely there must be some form of relationship between us and the EU which is acceptable to both sides.
I am very depressed.
|
>> >> many of those will just be resistant to what
>> >> they see as unnecessary change, which means keeping the union and UK sovereignty
>>
>> Same applies to leaving the EU, surely? Unnecessary change? Ah, but don't tell me. That
>> would be necessary change, right?
Possibly, but not necessarily;)
It depends where you start from.
Currently the UK is primarily self-governing. If we accept as a premise that the EU is a USE project, and we want to retain sovereignty, then the "no unnecessary change" position becomes one of
- negotiating a level of membership that does not cede sovereignty; or
- leaving the EU.
I am uncomfortable, frankly, with the idea of a centrally governed Europe whether we are in it or not.
I voted for the EC in 1975. Many of my parents' and grandparents' generations as I recall it thought broadly in terms of being more or less friendly with countries that had been at war twice in the previous 60 years - at the extremes seeing the EC as desirable reconciliation, or on the other hand sleeping with the enemy. I could see no reason at all not to cooperate on trade (and still can't).
Cooperation is one thing, government is another. I don't have your knowledge of the former Yugoslavia; did that putting together of bits of the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia make things better or worse? Probably difficult to untangle now and perhaps the subsequent events and divisions of WW2 played a large part in its eventual self-destruction. Maybe it isn't that relevant.
|
>> I don't have your knowledge of the former
>> Yugoslavia; did that putting together of bits of the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia make things
>> better or worse? Probably difficult to untangle now and perhaps the subsequent events and divisions
>> of WW2 played a large part in its eventual self-destruction. Maybe it isn't that relevant.
>>
Best left alone now, I'd say. Sadly.
They're all either in or wanting to get in to the EU now, and people are realising that the separations were pointless in that context. Imagine if a united, peaceful Yugoslavia had entered the EU when Slovenia did. It would have been a major player. They have lost decades of advancement with their ridiculous nationalisms.
A strange anomaly is Montenegro - it is using the Euro as its currency, despite not being in the EU. And EU rules of entry state that an applicant nation has to have its own currency as a starting point to join the EU and subsequently the Euro. So either that rule will have to change or Montenegro will have to set up a currency for a couple of years and then reaccept the Euro.
|
>> Nothing wrong with Scottish identity but the Highlands and Islands probably have less in common
>> with Edinburgh than Edinburgh does with London. or Glasgow does with Sheffield.
The disconnection of remote bits from Edinburgh is true and is reflected in voting patterns in Shetland and the Western Isles. But neither Stornoway nor Lerwick would necessarily ally with London over Edinburgh.
>> Most of the population lives in the central belt anyway.
And?
>> The "problem" of being governed from the South East corner is imaginary. Every country governs
>> from somewhere and most of them have more distant "remote" bits than we do.
If it was just about 'where' that might just be true. Other countries with bits that are remote AND have a separate cultural identity though have devolution/separation issues too. See Spain.
My main point was about 'in the interests of'.
|
>> Absolutely. Which is why we need some sort of Constitutional Convention to resolve West Lothian/English
>> Votes English Laws question properly. Trying to produce a solution to that using the FPTP
>> Westminster Parliament when all three devolved assemblies use PR is going to cause more resentment.
>>
You're dead right. We need a proper convention, independently led.
Yes, we need PR to provide the membership of any resulting legislature. (AMS seems the best balance of fairness and local representation in my view).
One further point, devolution for England means just that - ENGLAND - and not multiple regional assemblies.
|
>>One further point, devolution for England means just that - ENGLAND - and not multiple regional assemblies
Yeah, that'll help the North of England.
|
>> >>One further point, devolution for England means just that - ENGLAND - and not multiple
>> regional assemblies
>>
>> Yeah, that'll help the North of England.
>>
You are a long term poster on this site, and I cannot imagine you writing something like that flippantly.
Since I like to have my preconceptions and ideas challenged, I would be pleased if you could spare the time to write another post explaining why you think it would be better to have multiple regional governments in England instead of a single English one (in, say, Manchester).
Don't feel threatened or inhibited in any way. I won't be nasty. I am genuinely curious and would like to learn other people's views on the site.
|
>>instead of a single English one (in, say, Manchester).
How is a single national assembly much different to Westminster?
It would be responsible for ~85% of the population that the UK govt currently governs.
In what way would it be able to strategically help support the weakest areas of England any differently to the London-based 'assembly' in Parliament?
My personal view is that the North of England is the most neglected/least supported area in Great Britain.
Yorkshire has a population similar to Scotland - I'm pretty sure it could justify a regional assembly that could have powers devolved from London in much the same way as Scotland (eg. Health, Education, Agriculture, Training, Housing, Social Services, Law/Order, etc)
There are geographically chunks of England each with 5-10 million people that I am sure would likely benefit from a tad more autonomy.
Without this, the political dogma of the current incumbent govt in London is pretty much spread over every part of England whether they want it or not.
As alluded in other posts higher up - just how much does a guy from Bradford have in common with on from Truro, or Kensington.
Norfolk's populace would be able to ensure all clothing outlets had six-fingered gloves available.
|
That was a good explanation Lygonos...pity about the last line.
Pat
|
I would say that the last thing we need is another tier of local government. We!ve already got Parish councils, District councils and County councils. I don't want a regional assembly as well.
Traditionally people's allegiance to an area is at county level not at some grouping called something like "The Eastern Region". Even at a county level many areas of the country don' t have much of a feeling of place. Norfolk, like Cornwall, and Yorkshire and some others still do though.
|
>> I would say that the last thing we need is another tier of local government.
>> We!ve already got Parish councils, District councils and County councils. I don't want a regional
>> assembly as well.
>>
>> Traditionally people's allegiance to an area is at county level not at some grouping called
>> something like "The Eastern Region".
Similar to my thoughts.
|
>> >> I would say that the last thing we need is another tier of local government.
Abso flipping lutely
There is nowhere near the sense of local "nationality" that there is in Scotland or possibly Wales anywhere else I have found in the UK.
Yes people may be proud of being from Yorkshire or wherever but it's not the same thing
|
@Lygonos Thank you very much for replying. Your views are logical, coherent and workable for people who favour greater regionalisation.
Firstly, I think that we both have the same goal but disagree on the means to achieve it. i.e. to balance wealth and development across the whole country instead of it being disproportionaly concentrated in the South East. (This is a relief because it takes a lot of potential sting out of the discussion.)
There was a trial with regional assemblies to see how the concept worked(1). They found that a large proportion of work was going on co-ordination with neighbouring regions.
The North East had a referendum on whether the voters wanted a proper regional assembly in 2004 (2). 77.9% voted against, but attitudes may have changed since then.
There are already some regional government structures in place (e.g.County Councils & Regional Development Agence). They need to be used better, and can be the target of devolved powers, e.g Greater Manchester
>> How is a single national assembly much different to Westminster?
If England is to get its overdue devolution then this means moving to a Federal structure. The powers of National Parliament in a Federal structure shrink, but the powers that it keeps are important, e.g. Defence, External Relations & the Central Treasury. In this scheme, England could have one legislative assembly or multiple regional ones.
>> How is a single national assembly much different to Westminster?
The Tories want to use Westminster for two jobs. By using EVEL (3) they save the cost of running a separate English Assembly/Regional Ones. This is messy. Had the recent election just been a percent or two different in the popular vote then we would likely have had a party with a minority of seats in England holding power with the help of the SNP. (This is a situation which Scotland has been all too familiar with).
There is nothing intrinsically anti-North or pro-London about having a single English assembly rather than multiple regional ones, especially if the assembly was located outside London (I suggest no further south than Birmingham). Regional development was driven quite well from Westminster between 1945 and 1979. It was only when the Conservatives were elected in 1979 with new economic theories which broke the post-war consensus that regional policy suffered. (4)
>> As alluded in other posts higher up - just how much does a guy from Bradford have in common with on from Truro, or Kensington.
Quite a lot actually. Worries about job, mortgage, kids education, affording a new car etc. But there are the same differences within regions - if you have a regional assembly in Yorkshire you could ask "What does a guy in Bradford have in common with a farmer in the Dales?"
(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_assembly_%28England%29
(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004
(3) English Votes for English Laws
(4) The overall pros and cons of the 1979-1997 Conservative Government are for another debate.
|
>> Absolutely. He's being satirical in part I assume, or trying to be, the comparison of
>> the flags can only be mischief.
>>
>> The fact that the SNP has dignified his comments with a serious and angry response
>> worries me slightly!
He may have been satirical in part but the rest looks semi serious - in the controversial way DS likes. Once sections of the media (qv Daily Mail) report his words as straight opinion the SNP have little option but to go on offensive them selves.
|
The 200th. anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, where a certain French dream was shattered, is being heartily celebrated by the same establishment which thinks its a good idea that Napoleon's idea of a U.S.E. is "a good thing"!
(Slightly T.I.C.)
:-)
|
I'm with Alanović on federations and groupings, the more there are the better. Federal groupings exercise a restraining influence on impulsive or ambitious or simply barmy individual states.
I also agree with Bromptonaut that the word republic should be played down while there are still monarchies in Europe.
Good main cartoon in the comic today, Mutti worrying about small marginal European countries clinging to the edges of Europe. Made me chuckle anyway.
|
>>Made me chuckle anyway.
Little things ...
:o)
|
Starkey: SNP similar to Nazis - Dutchie
