BonnieDundee

Kind of. I want to keep the union but simply take almost all but ceremonial power from the central gov't. In fact I'd take most from the nations and using the principle of subsidiarity given most power to local and regional authorities. It is more democratic and although they have the same problems they are more managable on a smaller scale more in line with the scale of man himself.

The positives of the union are however that we are the same island and the perfect size and makeup to defend our independence together, but that doesn't necessitate a central gov't with any real powers. Defence and foreign affairs can be co-ordinated but this only needs the different regions or nations to meet and decide together what must be done.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Ea of Dune

BD> The problem that you will encounter though is on who decides upon what the regions are.
I'm personally an English nationalist who recognises the traditional counties of England and our history. I'd back (much to many of my peers dismay) Cornish autmonomy as a seperate country for example if the majority of the residents decided so.

I commend your attitude to the British state, however I think judging by Scotland voting history and the current mess you and your kin are probably on the back foot at the moment electoral wise?

Ea of dune

BonnieDundee

I'd personally hope the regions were given their own say in what they want. Cornwall is likely to go for regional autonomy if allowed a say. I'd hope the rest of the UK goes the same way.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

cassie

Some kind of democratic unionism which prevents 85% of its voters from having a say on constitutional changes which affect it! Yes, referenda have been held since 1979 involving only some 10% of the UK's voters. Who in his right English mind wants this arrogant discrimination to continue . . . only Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, of course!


------------------------------------

cassie

Yes but you're a Scot who pretends to be a Unionist but who actually supports the EU's arbitrary regionalisation of England in order to break it up! As you have said: it's none of your business!



--------------------------

cassie

You'll be looking forward to the Shetlands and the Orkneys being given 'regional autonomy' if not actually going their own way then?



-------------------------

Smidgey

I asked you if the 'rights' given to Northern Ireland got your goat. You have not replied. You brought it up not me. So if you are going to charge someone with making irrelevant statements, you shoudl probably charge yourself as well.

I'm sorry I wasn't as precise as you in my wording oh mighty Cassie.

Several times you have said 'a scot' either in parenthesis or separated by commas. It is entirely irrelevant to any discussion, which is why I took it as complaining. If you had some other meaning behind the use of these words, please do tell.

Not at all, I wouldn't expect the Scots to vote in a referendum on English independence either. You would, otherwise it would be your double standards. Tell me Cassie, should France have the right to vote Britain to stay in the EU since our leaving would obviously affect them?

Please provide a quote of where is misrepresented you. It appears obsessive to me, this is a subjective claim (which in my opinion is true), but please, again, quote where I misrepresented you.

Another subjective view, but unlike you, I wouldn't ask you to back it up since I can tell the difference betweeen what is objective and what is subjective.

You accused me of misrepresenting your position (with no evidence) and then you went onto misrepresent mine. There are absolutely no double standards in my opinion and for you to suppose that there are is a clear misrepresentation of my opinion. Next time you should ask what my opinion is on a matter before jumping to conclusions.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Smidgey

P.S. You should not hold me responsible for what people like Brown do to England. I did not vote for them (I'm not saying that you do).

Further, you claim that the UK is a democracy and that the 85% should have a say on referenda in the 10%. Surely by this logic, the outcomes of general elections (i.e. the election of Labour despite not having a majority in England) should be accepted by you? Surely it would be a violation of these democratic principles to prevent Labour from doing what they wished to England? I wouldn't ever accept that if I were you...

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

cassie

I actually wrote: "You specialise in generalisations. I am not aware of any question relevant to this thread which you have posed to me. Perhaps you'd care to remind me?" Therefore, your question about 'getting my goat' is both untrue and irrelevant. Also, if you read what I wrote rather than what you imagine for your own convenience, I did not 'charge' anyone in that post with making 'irrelevant statements'; I merely implied that you asked an irrelevant question, which you did (about allegedly 'getting my goat')! Now, I realise that the dreaded English may not be your first language, so I'll make allowances!

In my opinion, the comparison with citizenship rights gratuitously given to the Irish is relevant to any comparisons of the rights denied to the English. I appreciate that, as a Scot, you are hostile to that view.

As I said earlier, "You specialise in generalisations". You cite the particular words and the Post, and I'll do my best to respond by way of explanation.

I've represented too many falsely accused people to fall for that silly ploy! You know the kind of thing: "We've had complaints about your attendance/time keeping/work etc. What do you have to say?" Typical answer: "Who made the complaints? To whom did they make the complaints? Were the complaints made in writing? When were those complaints made?" Get the picture?
Despite being tempted by the poverty of your position, kindly do not attempt to tell me mine! I would expect voters in Scotland to be afforded opportunity in a UK-wide referendum to record THEIR collective opinions about the desirability or otherwise of England separating from the UK.

I'm afraid your question relating to France is not only too vague to answer sensibly, but also appears irrelevant.
Look above where you've misrepresented me as 'bringing up' the 'rights' given to Northern Ireland having 'got my goat'.
I'll treat this as a retreat on your part.

More generalisations!


-----------------------------

cassie

There you have it EA of Dune! An admission of the limits of his ability to comprehend.

In marked contrast, my position is perfectly logical AND consistent. In a democracy, ALL voters should be afforded equality of treatment, including the opportunity to record collectrive opinions about ANY changes to the constitution of their state especially if, by so doing, it ensures that the vast majority (85%) are enabled to participate if they wish.

You may wish to note very carefully that those, usually a minority of the whole, who oppose full participation are unable to offer any rational or acceptable explanation other than alleging it is solely their business. One wonders why we NEVER hear them complain about all the media recording its opinions far and wide and inflicting them on the English, especially when it is alleged not to be their business!


--------------------------