is there a need for the EDP ?

Rebirth · 16-04-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

I am not sure why you would draw that conclusion, I simply take the view that there are two sides to this argument and both feel they have reason to say they have been treated unfairly over the years.

Was just a question.

Can we use that argument sometime in the future?

rjt · 16-04-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebirth

Was just a question.

Can we use that argument sometime in the future?

I am sure it will be used again and again until a fair settlement is reached, from my perspective I hope it is a settlement that sustains and strengthens the Union, it could do with building up again after the damage Blair has caused.

rjt · 16-04-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassie

I don't think your line here is going anywhere constructive!

-

Well I share the same reservations about your line at times but accept that what you want is a fair settlement.

Little Englander (sour) · 16-04-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

from my perspective I hope it is a settlement that sustains and strengthens the Union, it could do with building up again after the damage Blair has caused.

I think you'll find that the Scots and Welsh voters had something to do with the break up of the UK, all Blair did was put the question to them and they answered.
As an Englishman, I of course, had no say on the matter even though I am one of the 85% that make up the majority of the U(ha ha)K.

Did you have a chance to vote?

rjt · 16-04-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Englander (sour)

I think you'll find that the Scots and Welsh voters had something to do with the break up of the UK, all Blair did was put the question to them and they answered.
As an Englishman, I of course, had no say on the matter even though I am one of the 85% that make up the majority of the U(ha ha)K.

Did you have a chance to vote?

No I did not have a vote in the referndum because it was something for Scotland and wales to decide, the Labour Party was elected in 1997 on a mandate to put that question which they did.

Just as the Scots and Welsh did not get a vote on whether the North East of England should have had a regional assembly.

Just as People living in Dundee did not get a vote on whether Hartlepool should have an elected mayor or not.

cassie · 16-04-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

No I did not have a vote in the referndum because it was something for Scotland and wales to decide, the Labour Party was elected in 1997 on a mandate to put that question which they did.

Just as the Scots and Welsh did not get a vote on whether the North East of England should have had a regional assembly.

Just as People living in Dundee did not get a vote on whether Hartlepool should have an elected mayor or not.

Some united kingdom whereby 85% of voters in England are excluded from decisions which affect them! For your information, the actual words in the 1997 manifesto are:"We will meet the demand for decentralisation of power to Scotland and Wales, once established in referendums" You omitted to say where you were living in 1997, but if it was in England, of course you would not be registered as a voter in Scotland and would not be entitled to vote. You omitted to address this factor when making your grand and inaccurate statement statement about entitlement., but then, we have come expect this kind of deceit from Scots unfortunately!

In a truly representative government of a truly united kingdom, that should mean a referendum of the UK about Scotland, and another about Wales. The majority in Wales was 50.3% on a 50.1% turnout after a massive campaign by ministers - some 'demand' there then! Radically different to the treatment of the voters in the erstwhile English county of Monmouthshire in 1972!

You are correct in saying: "the Scots and Welsh did not get a vote on whether the North East of England should have had a regional assembly" - for what it is worth! However, neither did England get a vote on whether the north east of England should be saddled with a regional assembly such are the double-standards of Scots; I include you for espousing this inequitable line also!

Worse, England as a nation in its own right (which is no less than Scotland's), has never been accorded a vote on the form 'decentralised power' should take in England. Instead, we've had to suffer ill-mannered and ill-conceived interference from Scots, Irish and Welsh!

As for your comment about Dundee, it is really not worth giving it any further attention.

Whilst the current inequities continue, the prospects of the UK remaining united decrease as more and more voters in England will find it intolerable to share a state with others who are proving to be so nasty and unfair!

-

rjt · 16-04-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassie

Some united kingdom whereby 85% of voters in England are excluded from decisions which affect them! For your information, the actual words in the 1997 manifesto are:"We will meet the demand for decentralisation of power to Scotland and Wales, once established in referendums" You omitted to say where you were living in 1997, but if it was in England, of course you would not be registered as a voter in Scotland and would not be entitled to vote. You omitted to address this factor when making your grand and inaccurate statement statement about entitlement., but then, we have come expect this kind of deceit from Scots unfortunately!

In a truly representative government of a truly united kingdom, that should mean a referendum of the UK about Scotland, and another about Wales. The majority in Wales was 50.3% on a 50.1% turnout after a massive campaign by ministers - some 'demand' there then! Radically different to the treatment of the voters in the erstwhile English county of Monmouthshire in 1972!

You are correct in saying: "the Scots and Welsh did not get a vote on whether the North East of England should have had a regional assembly" - for what it is worth! However, neither did England get a vote on whether the north east of England should be saddled with a regional assembly such are the double-standards of Scots; I include you for espousing this inequitable line also!

Worse, England as a nation in its own right (which is no less than Scotland's), has never been accorded a vote on the form 'decentralised power' should take in England. Instead, we've had to suffer ill-mannered and ill-conceived interference from Scots, Irish and Welsh!

As for your comment about Dundee, it is really not worth giving it any further attention.

Whilst the current inequities continue, the prospects of the UK remaining united decrease as more and more voters in England will find it intolerable to share a state with others who are proving to be so nasty and unfair!

-

I certainly agree the union is unsustainable in its present form.

Some Scots might argue that they were completly disenfranchised during the 18 years of Tory government and were not treated fairly there, I am not saying that such a view is correct but it was quite widely held at the time.

For the record I was living in Aldershot in 1997 just as I have all my life.

Little Englander (sour) · 16-04-2008, 11:57 PM

What Cassie said, plus.
We all know now that manifesto promises are not binding and are a pretty useless way of the voters ascertaining the aims and aspirations of the different political parties.

I, as an Englishman, did not get a vote on "regionalisation" in the NE of England, were any resident Scots or Welsh voters debarred from participating in their respective referendums?

It would now seem that referendums are only actioned if the required answer results.

As for the 18 years of Tory rule, everyone in the UK during that period was treated equally (apart from the daft idea to pilot the poll tax in Scotland). I served in the armed forces with Scots, Welsh, and N. Irish members. we all paid the same taxes. If required, we all got the same medical treatment, in other words the United Kingdom was just that - United and equal.

Britannist · 17-04-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

If the argument is to have an English Parliament based on the Scottish model, then would it be fair to say that we can expect an increase of MP head count by well over a thousand?

.......No.

Britannist · 17-04-2008, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

.....I hope it is a settlement that sustains and strengthens the Union, it could do with building up again after the damage Blair has caused.

Yes - he has caused massive damage to the Union of the UK with his devolution policy. What a pity that the Unitary state we were before Blair's devolution came in has gone.

However, what Blair/Labour have done on this is not cast in stone and changes can be made to strengthen the Union of the UK.

16-04-2008, 11:57 PM	#58 (permalink)
Little Englander (sour) Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 949 Party: English Democrats	What Cassie said, plus. We all know now that manifesto promises are not binding and are a pretty useless way of the voters ascertaining the aims and aspirations of the different political parties. I, as an Englishman, did not get a vote on "regionalisation" in the NE of England, were any resident Scots or Welsh voters debarred from participating in their respective referendums? It would now seem that referendums are only actioned if the required answer results. As for the 18 years of Tory rule, everyone in the UK during that period was treated equally (apart from the daft idea to pilot the poll tax in Scotland). I served in the armed forces with Scots, Welsh, and N. Irish members. we all paid the same taxes. If required, we all got the same medical treatment, in other words the United Kingdom was just that - United and equal. __________________ Little Englander (bigoted)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode