The Benefits of the Union

cassie · 14-05-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Cassie, shut up.

I feel as a Frenchie your views on England carry no weight.

Well, we English all know what a 'frenchie' is! Your admitting to feeling like one says it all!

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

Frith · 14-05-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

I would be interested to learn from Cassie and Britannist, how they would achieve the creation of their federal UK, and an English parliament in particular, bearing in mind, we the taxpayer are thoroughly sick of the cost of politicians and their lovely expense accounts, and we don't want any more thank you. Oh yes, we the taxpayers saw how much was spent on that monstrosity of a building in Edinburgh for the Scottish parliament. We don't want to spend any money on fancy new buildings or anything like that.

You see, whatever way you try and sell it, the federal idea is going to cost a lot of money. As you two are among the most vocal of supporters of a federal UK, please demonstrate to the rest of the forum how you both would bring this about, and how it could work.

Don't forget the Millennium Dome, most hideous construction ever.

It should be dismantled.

cassie · 14-05-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

I would be interested to learn from Cassie and Britannist, how they would achieve the creation of their federal UK, and an English parliament in particular, bearing in mind, we the taxpayer are thoroughly sick of the cost of politicians and their lovely expense accounts, and we don't want any more thank you. Oh yes, we the taxpayers saw how much was spent on that monstrosity of a building in Edinburgh for the Scottish parliament. We don't want to spend any money on fancy new buildings or anything like that.

You see, whatever way you try and sell it, the federal idea is going to cost a lot of money. As you two are among the most vocal of supporters of a federal UK, please demonstrate to the rest of the forum how you both would bring this about, and how it could work.

I would have thought that it behoves those insisting upon radical change to demonstrate that THEIR proposals will 'save a lot of money'.

However, it would seem desirable to first prove the veracity of your assertion that "the federal idea is going to cost a lot of money". (This can provide a standard against which to assess the efficacy of your alternative.) In doing that, perhaps you could explain how the "federal idea" is so rigid and restricted that it can take only one form which will incur huge costs? Part of your rationale might touch upon what the "lot of money" will be ie whether capital or operational expenditure and, in each applicable case, the order of cost relative to the annual Exchequer Budget?

Whilst embarking upon this exercise, it might also be useful to demonstrate that your alternative can only take an economical (ie cost saving) form?

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

Richard the Lionheart · 14-05-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassie

I would have thought that it behoves those insisting upon radical change to demonstrate that THEIR proposals will 'save a lot of money'.

However, it would seem desirable to first prove the veracity of your assertion that "the federal idea is going to cost a lot of money". (This can provide a standard against which to assess the efficacy of your alternative.) In doing that, perhaps you could explain how the "federal idea" is so rigid and restricted that it can take only one form which will incur huge costs? Part of your rationale might touch upon what the "lot of money" will be ie whether capital or operational expenditure and, in each applicable case, the order of cost relative to the annual Exchequer Budget?

Whilst embarking upon this exercise, it might also be useful to demonstrate that your alternative can only take an economical (ie cost saving) form?

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

I'm glad you asked!

1. Reduction in the number of MPs in the House of Commons as non-English constituency MPs are removed.

2. The end of the Barnett Formula.

3. Reduction in the cost of the civil service.

4. No need for costly new buildings.

5. No need for the hundreds of MPs that would be required for an English parliament within a federal UK.

6. No more WLQ.

7. The increase in jobs as MoD facilities are moved south. 10,000 jobs could be created by moving the submarine bases alone.

8. 4,800 jobs will be created by moving DVLA into England.

These are a few with which to begin with. At some point we intend to create the English Independence Convention to discuss such plans and how it can be done. We already have an idea, but would like to invite serious academics to debate this. You are already aware of the 1983 Vienna Convention which would be a guiding document towards the dissolution of the UK. The place where the division of the UK would take place should be at a Council of the Isles, which would also be the forum to deal with other issues common to us all.

Of course, if people are unhappy to see the end of the WLQ, an end of the Barnett Formula, the creation of an English nation state, the creation of a legislature that has supreme governing powers, then please say so.

One other advantage, we will have English passports, not those nasty little British ones that are two a penny in places like Karachi, Calcutta and Tehran.

Frith · 14-05-2008, 02:27 PM

Richard, that was a welcome post as you are all thinking and planning the way nationalist groups should have been doing for some years, but they just couldn't seem to break free of all those old outdated "us" and "them" ideas that clogged their entire enterprise and led them up dead end alley and into endless cycles of in-fighting.

Your plans look very good and your wish to have experts debate them and help you formulate policy is the way to go. With an attitude like this and a plan of action that doesn't aim to create prejudice against other erstwhile union members but instead to invite them into a Council of the Isles, you should have an interesting and fruitful work schedule over the next few years. And something exciting and new to present to interested supporters.

cassie · 14-05-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

I'm glad you asked!

1. Reduction in the number of MPs in the House of Commons as non-English constituency MPs are removed.

2. The end of the Barnett Formula.

3. Reduction in the cost of the civil service.

4. No need for costly new buildings.

5. No need for the hundreds of MPs that would be required for an English parliament within a federal UK.

6. No more WLQ.

7. The increase in jobs as MoD facilities are moved south. 10,000 jobs could be created by moving the submarine bases alone.

8. 4,800 jobs will be created by moving DVLA into England.

These are a few with which to begin with. At some point we intend to create the English Independence Convention to discuss such plans and how it can be done. We already have an idea, but would like to invite serious academics to debate this. You are already aware of the 1983 Vienna Convention which would be a guiding document towards the dissolution of the UK. The place where the division of the UK would take place should be at a Council of the Isles, which would also be the forum to deal with other issues common to us all.

Of course, if people are unhappy to see the end of the WLQ, an end of the Barnett Formula, the creation of an English nation state, the creation of a legislature that has supreme governing powers, then please say so.

One other advantage, we will have English passports, not those nasty little British ones that are two a penny in places like Karachi, Calcutta and Tehran.

I'm glad that you're glad!

It'll do as an appetite warmer, but what about:

A. An explanation of how the "federal idea" is so rigid and restricted that it can take only one form which will incur huge costs, with particular reference to a definition of what is a "lot of money"?

B. A statement of whether capital or operational expenditure is involved and, in each applicable case, the order of cost relative to the annual Exchequer Budget? [This last is a good 'un - it pre-supposes a particular size of budget!]

At the moment in the absence of an answer to my A. above, your 1. to 8. could be claimed in respect of a federal arrangement.

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

Richard the Lionheart · 14-05-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassie

I'm glad that you're glad!

It'll do as an appetite warmer, but what about:

A. An explanation of how the "federal idea" is so rigid and restricted that it can take only one form which will incur huge costs, with particular reference to a definition of what is a "lot of money"?

B. A statement of whether capital or operational expenditure is involved and, in each applicable case, the order of cost relative to the annual Exchequer Budget? [This last is a good 'un - it pre-supposes a particular size of budget!]

At the moment in the absence of an answer to my A. above, your 1. to 8. could be claimed in respect of a federal arrangement.

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

You are asking for things way beyond the bounds of an internet chat forum. But you still failed to answer my earlier post, and have turned things around putting the onus on me, very clever!

Would you like to do me the courtesy of answering my earlier enquiry please?

Britannist · 14-05-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

As you two are among the most vocal of supporters of a federal UK, please demonstrate to the rest of the forum how you both would bring this about, and how it could work.

You sound like a teacher setting homework

.

Richard - do you really believe that I am going to spend time doing the above when you have already decided to disagree with what I write? You want an end to the UK (unlike me) and you will reject any reasons (and there are many) I could give for establishing and maintaining a fair UK (i.e. a UK Union in which England has equal status within it with Scotland).

And why, Richard, are you spending time criticising Cassie and I - both of whom share your wish to see the establishment of an English Parliament? Surely you should be arguing instead on a Labour Party website against those in this shower of a Labour Government we have to put up with who are determined to deny us our right to a Parliament for England just like the one they have in Scotland?

Britannist · 14-05-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard the Lionheart

Reduction in the number of MPs in the House of Commons.....The end of the Barnett Formula. The increase in jobs as MoD facilities are moved south. 10,000 jobs could be created by moving the submarine bases alone.

Richard - you say that the above could happen if England were independent of the Union of the UK.

In fact, if Scotland quit the UK all of the above could actually happen without England leaving the UK.

If Scotland quit the Union of the UK (and I hope that she does not) the UK would just carry on (as England, Northern Ireland and Wales) and UK military installations which had been based in Scotland would be moved into the English part of the UK.

Andrew Constantine · 14-05-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

Richard - you say that the above could happen if England were independent of the Union of the UK.

In fact, if Scotland quit the UK all of the above could actually happen without England leaving the UK.

If Scotland quit the Union of the UK (and I hope that she does not) the UK would just carry on (as England, Northern Ireland and Wales) and UK military installations which had been based in Scotland would be moved into the English part of the UK.

If I may speak for the English independence movement, we do not wish to rule any of the other home nations. We do not want the Union to continue. We wish Scotland, Wales and NI good luck, peace and prosperity - but we do not want to be part of some supranational state with them.

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

14-05-2008, 02:27 PM	#75 (permalink)
Frith Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 660	Richard, that was a welcome post as you are all thinking and planning the way nationalist groups should have been doing for some years, but they just couldn't seem to break free of all those old outdated "us" and "them" ideas that clogged their entire enterprise and led them up dead end alley and into endless cycles of in-fighting. Your plans look very good and your wish to have experts debate them and help you formulate policy is the way to go. With an attitude like this and a plan of action that doesn't aim to create prejudice against other erstwhile union members but instead to invite them into a Council of the Isles, you should have an interesting and fruitful work schedule over the next few years. And something exciting and new to present to interested supporters.