SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
O/K a few years ago, on this very forum, you accused me of 'wanting one because they have one' (Scottish Parliament) That was crap then and it's crap today. There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it. Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously. I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country. Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge. Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
I'm only mentioning the highly loaded and emotive "Balkanisation" word because you used it again and again. In no way can it replaced by "regionalisation" as the two words have such different meanings and intent as you well know.
You keep saying that the EU want to carve up England. I assume that this goes back to 2006 and some plans around a project called Interreg, which wants to foster cross-border co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment. Since then has anything actually happened or it is just another "EU want straight bananas" scare story?
In the same way you stated as fact that the last Labour Government refused to build new prisons when just such a construction was happening in Plumstead and elsewhere. Yes, I have a good memory too.
Not sure I said that England "deserves it's own Parliament". What I said was "Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form".
I'm open to the idea of an English parliament now as I was then but have doubts now, as then, over adding yet more layers of government and cost.
The coming debate on constitutional reform will be interesting and will IMHO have a number of unforeseen consequences. Already we are seeing the three main UK parties taking up their party political positions. That usually means that they are thinking about themselves first and the country second, one reason I've never had much time for them.
Look the word 'Balkanisation' it means in this context, to divide up England in a way similar to that employed in the 'Balkans' Blimey even Lord Tebbit used it yesterday (i'm not sure i should have mentioned that to you) I'm not certain that it was the 'Intereg' you mention. But i have seen the maps that were produced. You believe it's scaremongering. I believe it's based on fact. I do constantly attempt to explain to you and anyone interested. An English Parliament does not mean more politicians. Nor more layers of politicians. It would simply do the job that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly currently do. Using the same politicians that currently represent English constituencies. All i want is equality for England. Nothing more. I believe a new Federal UK is the best answer. I hope enough Westminster MP's agree. If you want some more interesting reading on this subject? Take a look at John Redwood MP for Wokingham website. Put aside any pre-concieved notions you have about him. He is becoming the spokesman within Parliament, for English representation.
Already we are seeing the three main UK parties taking up their party political positions. That usually means that they are thinking about themselves first and the country second, one reason I've never had much time for them.
Worringly that's true and it's that we English fight constantly. I have no time for any of the Lib/Lab/Con I'm still waiting for a party that represents my wishes. Maybe out of all this, one of them (or UKIP) will?
We're going to have an English parliament in the sense that issues that impact England only will be voted on only by MPs representing constituencies in England. That proposition is so fundamental to basic democratic principles it is simply irresistible. This debate is over to all intents and purposes.
The only question now is quite how it happens. As @Henry Irving says, there will, inevitably, be a significant element of party political positioning, but even here it really isn't clear how sustainable or credible such posturing will be. If the current Conservative party has a stronger position in an English only parliament than it has currently, then that is simply the will of the country the English parliament has been elected to represent.
Ed Milliband now needs to think very hard about how to respond to this challenge and how to position the party he leads. Whatever he does, he needs to do it with dignity and conviction. Ideally, of course, we need a leader with presence, stature and credibility, but unfortunately it really isn't clear where that individual is. I'm almost inclined to believe that the quality of the individual is now more important than which side of the house that leader sits.
This problem is not unique to us. Looking across Europe the only leader one can truly respect and admire, regardless of policy and belief, is German Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkl. Unfortunately, we have nobody close.
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
. I'm almost inclined to believe that the quality of the individual is now more important than which side of the house that leader sits.
Really interesting post Mundell. As to your above point, hasn't this been pretty much the reality since the Labour Party abandoned all pretence of "Socialism"?
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
You're either on a wind up, very confused, or not very good at using English to put your point across. Here's hoping for a good result against Rotherham today.
. I'm almost inclined to believe that the quality of the individual is now more important than which side of the house that leader sits.
Really interesting post Mundell. As to your above point, hasn't this been pretty much the reality since the Labour Party abandoned all pretence of "Socialism"?
Yes, but without the quality of leadership!! That said, David Cameron is managing to make Tony Blair, whose politics were "neutral" as you imply, look very good!!
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
You're either on a wind up, very confused, or not very good at using English to put your point across. Here's hoping for a good result against Rotherham today.
No it's you that's confused along with a lot of others in thinking that Scotland is a country, it's not and nor has it been since the act of union. It's only Salmond and his ilk that want to harp on about our past history and what divides us instead of what unites us. If you listen to him there will be a bad outcome for us all. Clear enough for you?
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
Totally wrong Loco. Scotland is a country as is England. They are in a UNION. The clue is in the word. Wales incidentally is a Principality of England. Though i'm sure most Welsh see Wales as a country, as i do.
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
You're either on a wind up, very confused, or not very good at using English to put your point across. Here's hoping for a good result against Rotherham today.
No it's you that's confused along with a lot of others in thinking that Scotland is a country, it's not and nor has it been since the act of union. It's only Salmond and his ilk that want to harp on about our past history and what divides us instead of what unites us. If you listen to him there will be a bad outcome for us all. Clear enough for you?
I refuse to believe anything other than you're on a wind up because the alternative is even sadder. Maybe you do fit in with my description of some people on a previous post? Ah well, whatever the reason behind your posts there's no point lowering my intelligence levels to converse with you any further.
We need one parliament for the UK, pull down Holyrood and the Welsh assembly. One country, one government, lets put our minds to making that work instead of re-inventing our historical differences. People like Salmond are corrosive and divisive listen to them and we will all suffer. Lets get rid of this stupid home nations concept, unified sports, unified identity, unified aspirations, unity and progress not division and disagreement.
So go back to a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones? Easier to say when your part of the bigger country. And we all have to cowl down and be as one without identity or differences? I don't even feel unified with North London how the hell do you expect people in different countries to forget everything and suddenly obtain a "unified identity"? In theory your ideal sound great, but in reality it'd have to be '1984'.
NO! go back to a system where we are one country, I'm sure that's what I said. Scotland is no longer a country, in case you are not keeping up it's not been a country for 300 years.
Totally wrong Loco. Scotland is a country as is England. They are in a UNION. The clue is in the word. Wales incidentally is a Principality of England. Though i'm sure most Welsh see Wales as a country, as i do.
When you are in a hole mate.....best to stop digging
A country is merely a political point of view, a state is factual entity. Scotland is neither, it is not a country nor is England nor is Wales or Northern Island (No one would think Northern Island a country would they?). Don't let Salmond and his ilk turn your mind, The united Kingdom is our country, many, many young men died for it, don't let them down.
I'm not sure where Northern Island is. I know where Northern Ireland is though. I tell you what Loco. Why don't you pop up to Glasgow and tell a few of the Jocks, Scotland doesn't exist. That will be just what they want to hear right now. You know what? I think DRAddick is right about you......................
One answer to the West Lothian question: 1) give England a referendum on having a parliament like Scotland's 2) it'll be "no" 3) carry on
Via Twitter
It would be a landslide "yes".
I don't think people would vote for an English parliament on the Scottish model outside of the British House of Commons. Another layer of bureaucracy covering to large an area to have the benefits of local knowledge.
I'm not sure where Northern Island is. I know where Northern Ireland is though. I tell you what Loco. Why don't you pop up to Glasgow and tell a few of the Jocks, Scotland doesn't exist. That will be just what they want to hear right now. You know what? I think DRAddick is right about you......................
Draggs;
The union was formed of four countries not two; England Ireland Scotland and Wales, at that point 300 years ago all four ceased to be countries and a new country was formed call the United Kingdom, whereupon England Scotland Ireland and Wales are all now regions except where they have already left (Southern Ireland) the union. I have not said that Scotland does not exist, I know it does I go there regularly. What I have said, quite clearly is that it is not ac country and it is not.
Here is a link to a list of EU Countries; you will note the lack of a Scotland on that list:
Attached also a political map of Europe, you will note that Scotland is not delimited as a country. Nor are places like Aquitaine, Swabia or Pomerania all of which were once countries until such time as they were part of a bigger whole.
Now you guys can think what ever you like about me, I don't actually care too much however you should head the warning, this divisive poisonous brand of politics has already spread disharmony where there was none and will continue to do so if we let it. There are people in Scotland made up of four groups, The Scots, the Picts, the Gaels and the Britts in all they total an estimated 5,327,700 souls, 1,617,989 of which voted to become an independent country. That vote was lost and now they remain a region in the UK.
The fact that this region and the other afore mentioned regions have an international football team is a disgrace to all of us, it disunites us and is divisive and should no longer be tolerated. In France I think they have 6 (from memory, unchecked) former nations and one football league and one International team. In Germany they have (again from memory and unchecked) five former countries (some of which could also be Duchy's). The point is that most countries have historically been parted at some point and yet they don't feel the need to be partisan and have separate sports teams.
Finally to answer a question from above about having a government forced upon Scotland, if Scotland had of voted to leave the UK would the Ross Skye and Lochaber, Caithness Southerland and East Ross all have a case for independence from Scotland on the grounds that they had a government forced upon them? After all they Voted Liberal Democrat and I don't think they would get into power on 11% of the vote from the last election.
Salmond's perspective is poisonous and divisive, instead of rushing to separate everything lets try and get the democracy we have working properly with decisions being made at the lowest level possible, take out the regional parliaments and give back tax raising powers to the counties and local councils, free them of central bureaucracy and let the United Kingdom flourish without the sort of scenes we saw in George Square on Thursday last.
Logo You can believe what ever you want. But your history is poor, in fact wrong. This quote is so wrong it's laughable;
The union was formed of four countries not two; England Ireland Scotland and Wales, at that point 300 years ago all four ceased to be countries and a new country was formed call the United Kingdom.
There is no point continuing with this, you will not learn and you are rooted in UK ideal that died in 1998 with Blair's devolution. The clock won't be turned back. Nor should it.
Some forgive and forget, "move on" as they say. But without going into that there is a fundamental problem with an English parliament co-existing with a UK one. It is bound to end up on occasions with a situation like the US where one party (or a coalition) runs one set of policies and another diametrically opposed political entity runs the other. We have heard Alex Salmond with his soundbite of Team Scotland vs Team Westminster and it is that type of attitude which would be most destructive to the UK as a whole. As I posted before, Salmond missed the boat once the €uro became unpopular during the recession - it was always unpopular here because of a specific agenda but elsewhere in Europe the EU and the €uro are perceived differently. If the SNP had a credible solution towards currency and fiscal affairs they would have gone a lot further.
Whether it is Livingstone vs Thatcher (when she abolished the GLC) or another clash there will always be political risk and conflict but the obvious solution to me is to devolve health and education to the most credible local body - in our case the GLA for London.
The idea that Cameron is now going to hold up further Scottish devolution until there is an agreement for the whole UK is disengenuous at best and devious / spiteful at worst - I hope it comes back to bite him as he is looking to sell the scottish electorate a pup.
It would take someone with far more time and experience than I but there must be a plethora of working examples around the western world of how to decentralise power. And we can perhaps halve the number of MPs at the same time!
As for Europe, times and attitudes change - perhaps one day it will (once again) become blindingly obvious that our interests lie in working out the future with the main economies of Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Europe is actually far more divided between town and country, capital city growth areas and rural / coastal backwaters than it is between national borders. Our interests coincide with the vision of Angela Merkel far more than some like to admit. Take a look at the far right around Europe and you will see that their powerbase is built on the hopelessness of youth unemployment and stirring up fear of neighbouring country workers "stealing" jobs. The irony is that it is in all our interests of finding the best ways to run our hospitals, railways etc. etc and this may require foreign capital, foreign management and/or foreign labour. The more integrated a City is (like London) the less it is susceptable to the policies of nationalists like UKIP.
@cabbles if local solutions work then the private/public consortium that makes it work can cash in and export it to other regions / other countries - why else do we have Deutshe Bahn running Chiltern railways? It is perhaps naive to think that politicians have an interest in prioritising new ways and solutions but Labour have at least announced a policy of re-coupling the tracks with the trains. I am neither arrogant nor knowledgable enough to be able to provide solutions for the every sector of our economy. However I would like to add that attacking the root causes of the housing benefit bill (10% of GDP?)sounds much more interesting than trying to save 1% of GDP and de-coupling from the EU. Local / regional democracy will move up from a 30% turn out if local people have vehicles which can devise solutions and apply for central government and European funding to support job and education initiatives. Leaving this task with Whitehall is strange given that those same people have overseen the skewing of our economy towards finance and the South East.
And as for Boris and the GLA, he may be advancing his own ambitions to lead the Tories one day but he does a hell of a lot to promote London and steer various bodies in London's interests. These interests are bound into European capitals as well as liaising with New York etc. I've not researched it but I see headline after headline with him promoting a vision for London.... Crossrail 2, London airports etc.
If Scotland had been a kingdom it would have needed a king in the same way that an empire needed an emperor. If it had become a country it would have had Alex Salmond.
Hmmmm to everything at the moment. Ironic that Unionists were as NLA reported doing fascists salutes in Glasgow after the result (really?). I say ironic because I see extreme nationalism to have resonance of Nazi Germany. I mean what defines a nation or a race anyway, who is a 'true' Man of Kent, Yorkshireman?, Englishman?, Irishman?, Welshman?, or Scot? Who is a 'true' Brit, or European, or World citizen? Is it your address? Where you were actually born? Whatever you want to declare yourself as? Language spoken? Family history for x period of time? I noticed on one of the Scotland discussion forums about 'true' Scots having Pictish DNA! You what? Dear God! I heard DNA all boils down to a very narrow point anyway both Mathematically as well as Biologically. It all sounds so 'true Aryan' Nazi to me, these debates always do, true Romany verses 'Traveller', Saxon v Norman and so on. The late Bob Crow called the whole shebang right when he used to talk of 'an accident of birth'. I am not a fan of nationalism, I prefer more comprehensible and practical definitions of groupings, because the danger(s) of nationalism are there to see both from History and even in the present day.
Logo You can believe what ever you want. But your history is poor, in fact wrong. This quote is so wrong it's laughable;
The union was formed of four countries not two; England Ireland Scotland and Wales, at that point 300 years ago all four ceased to be countries and a new country was formed call the United Kingdom.
There is no point continuing with this, you will not learn and you are rooted in UK ideal that died in 1998 with Blair's devolution. The clock won't be turned back. Nor should it.
I've looked it up and you are quite right, two Kingdoms anyway. Let's you off the hook though doesn't it, you wont have to admit that Scotland is just a region now will you :-)
It's interesting Seth talking about the Unionists as right wing and not the SNP, I thought they were both right wing nationalists just with a different focus.
Comments
I'm not certain that it was the 'Intereg' you mention. But i have seen the maps that were produced. You believe it's scaremongering. I believe it's based on fact.
I do constantly attempt to explain to you and anyone interested. An English Parliament does not mean more politicians. Nor more layers of politicians. It would simply do the job that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly currently do. Using the same politicians that currently represent English constituencies.
All i want is equality for England. Nothing more. I believe a new Federal UK is the best answer. I hope enough Westminster MP's agree.
If you want some more interesting reading on this subject? Take a look at John Redwood MP for Wokingham website. Put aside any pre-concieved notions you have about him. He is becoming the spokesman within Parliament, for English representation.
Already we are seeing the three main UK parties taking up their party political positions. That usually means that they are thinking about themselves first and the country second, one reason I've never had much time for them.
Worringly that's true and it's that we English fight constantly. I have no time for any of the Lib/Lab/Con
I'm still waiting for a party that represents my wishes. Maybe out of all this, one of them (or UKIP) will?
The only question now is quite how it happens. As @Henry Irving says, there will, inevitably, be a significant element of party political positioning, but even here it really isn't clear how sustainable or credible such posturing will be. If the current Conservative party has a stronger position in an English only parliament than it has currently, then that is simply the will of the country the English parliament has been elected to represent.
Ed Milliband now needs to think very hard about how to respond to this challenge and how to position the party he leads. Whatever he does, he needs to do it with dignity and conviction. Ideally, of course, we need a leader with presence, stature and credibility, but unfortunately it really isn't clear where that individual is. I'm almost inclined to believe that the quality of the individual is now more important than which side of the house that leader sits.
This problem is not unique to us. Looking across Europe the only leader one can truly respect and admire, regardless of policy and belief, is German Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkl. Unfortunately, we have nobody close.
As to your above point, hasn't this been pretty much the reality since the Labour Party abandoned all pretence of "Socialism"?
I mean who's going to PAY?
1) give England a referendum on having a parliament like Scotland's
2) it'll be "no"
3) carry on
Via Twitter
Wales incidentally is a Principality of England. Though i'm sure most Welsh see Wales as a country, as i do.
When you are in a hole mate.....best to stop digging
Being in a minority never makes you wrong.
I tell you what Loco. Why don't you pop up to Glasgow and tell a few of the Jocks, Scotland doesn't exist. That will be just what they want to hear right now.
You know what? I think DRAddick is right about you......................
The union was formed of four countries not two; England Ireland Scotland and Wales, at that point 300 years ago all four ceased to be countries and a new country was formed call the United Kingdom, whereupon England Scotland Ireland and Wales are all now regions except where they have already left (Southern Ireland) the union. I have not said that Scotland does not exist, I know it does I go there regularly. What I have said, quite clearly is that it is not ac country and it is not.
Here is a link to a list of EU Countries; you will note the lack of a Scotland on that list:
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
Attached also a political map of Europe, you will note that Scotland is not delimited as a country. Nor are places like Aquitaine, Swabia or Pomerania all of which were once countries until such time as they were part of a bigger whole.
Now you guys can think what ever you like about me, I don't actually care too much however you should head the warning, this divisive poisonous brand of politics has already spread disharmony where there was none and will continue to do so if we let it. There are people in Scotland made up of four groups, The Scots, the Picts, the Gaels and the Britts in all they total an estimated 5,327,700 souls, 1,617,989 of which voted to become an independent country. That vote was lost and now they remain a region in the UK.
The fact that this region and the other afore mentioned regions have an international football team is a disgrace to all of us, it disunites us and is divisive and should no longer be tolerated. In France I think they have 6 (from memory, unchecked) former nations and one football league and one International team. In Germany they have (again from memory and unchecked) five former countries (some of which could also be Duchy's). The point is that most countries have historically been parted at some point and yet they don't feel the need to be partisan and have separate sports teams.
Finally to answer a question from above about having a government forced upon Scotland, if Scotland had of voted to leave the UK would the Ross Skye and Lochaber, Caithness Southerland and East Ross all have a case for independence from Scotland on the grounds that they had a government forced upon them? After all they Voted Liberal Democrat and I don't think they would get into power on 11% of the vote from the last election.
Salmond's perspective is poisonous and divisive, instead of rushing to separate everything lets try and get the democracy we have working properly with decisions being made at the lowest level possible, take out the regional parliaments and give back tax raising powers to the counties and local councils, free them of central bureaucracy and let the United Kingdom flourish without the sort of scenes we saw in George Square on Thursday last.
You can believe what ever you want. But your history is poor, in fact wrong.
This quote is so wrong it's laughable;
The union was formed of four countries not two; England Ireland Scotland and Wales, at that point 300 years ago all four ceased to be countries and a new country was formed call the United Kingdom.
There is no point continuing with this, you will not learn and you are rooted in UK ideal that died in 1998 with Blair's devolution. The clock won't be turned back. Nor should it.
And DRAs point that "a system that enabled the biggest country to continually force it's political choice over the smaller ones" doesn't wash either.
It's called democracy.
Just like the 'no' vote. No to making Scotland an independent Country.
"Better Together" is starting to sound like a great rallying cry.
As I posted before, Salmond missed the boat once the €uro became unpopular during the recession - it was always unpopular here because of a specific agenda but elsewhere in Europe the EU and the €uro are perceived differently. If the SNP had a credible solution towards currency and fiscal affairs they would have gone a lot further.
Whether it is Livingstone vs Thatcher (when she abolished the GLC) or another clash there will always be political risk and conflict but the obvious solution to me is to devolve health and education to the most credible local body - in our case the GLA for London.
The idea that Cameron is now going to hold up further Scottish devolution until there is an agreement for the whole UK is disengenuous at best and devious / spiteful at worst - I hope it comes back to bite him as he is looking to sell the scottish electorate a pup.
It would take someone with far more time and experience than I but there must be a plethora of working examples around the western world of how to decentralise power. And we can perhaps halve the number of MPs at the same time!
As for Europe, times and attitudes change - perhaps one day it will (once again) become blindingly obvious that our interests lie in working out the future with the main economies of Germany, France, Spain and Italy. Europe is actually far more divided between town and country, capital city growth areas and rural / coastal backwaters than it is between national borders.
Our interests coincide with the vision of Angela Merkel far more than some like to admit.
Take a look at the far right around Europe and you will see that their powerbase is built on the hopelessness of youth unemployment and stirring up fear of neighbouring country workers "stealing" jobs. The irony is that it is in all our interests of finding the best ways to run our hospitals, railways etc. etc and this may require foreign capital, foreign management and/or foreign labour. The more integrated a City is (like London) the less it is susceptable to the policies of nationalists like UKIP.
@cabbles if local solutions work then the private/public consortium that makes it work can cash in and export it to other regions / other countries - why else do we have Deutshe Bahn running Chiltern railways? It is perhaps naive to think that politicians have an interest in prioritising new ways and solutions but Labour have at least announced a policy of re-coupling the tracks with the trains. I am neither arrogant nor knowledgable enough to be able to provide solutions for the every sector of our economy. However I would like to add that attacking the root causes of the housing benefit bill (10% of GDP?)sounds much more interesting than trying to save 1% of GDP and de-coupling from the EU.
Local / regional democracy will move up from a 30% turn out if local people have vehicles which can devise solutions and apply for central government and European funding to support job and education initiatives. Leaving this task with Whitehall is strange given that those same people have overseen the skewing of our economy towards finance and the South East.
And as for Boris and the GLA, he may be advancing his own ambitions to lead the Tories one day but he does a hell of a lot to promote London and steer various bodies in London's interests. These interests are bound into European capitals as well as liaising with New York etc. I've not researched it but I see headline after headline with him promoting a vision for London.... Crossrail 2, London airports etc.
(Old joke attributed to Her Majesty QE2)
Ironic that Unionists were as NLA reported doing fascists salutes in Glasgow after the result (really?). I say ironic because I see extreme nationalism to have resonance of Nazi Germany. I mean what defines a nation or a race anyway, who is a 'true' Man of Kent, Yorkshireman?, Englishman?, Irishman?, Welshman?, or Scot? Who is a 'true' Brit, or European, or World citizen?
Is it your address? Where you were actually born? Whatever you want to declare yourself as? Language spoken? Family history for x period of time?
I noticed on one of the Scotland discussion forums about 'true' Scots having Pictish DNA! You what? Dear God! I heard DNA all boils down to a very narrow point anyway both Mathematically as well as Biologically. It all sounds so 'true Aryan' Nazi to me, these debates always do, true Romany verses 'Traveller', Saxon v Norman and so on.
The late Bob Crow called the whole shebang right when he used to talk of 'an accident of birth'.
I am not a fan of nationalism, I prefer more comprehensible and practical definitions of groupings, because the danger(s) of nationalism are there to see both from History and even in the present day.
It's interesting Seth talking about the Unionists as right wing and not the SNP, I thought they were both right wing nationalists just with a different focus.