info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scottish independence referendum proposal is flawed
3 views
Skip to first unread message
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Feb 26, 2012, 2:20:33 PM2/26/12
to
Two theses about the Scottish independence referendum:
1. The referendum as proposed (February 2012) by the SNP led scottish
government will be about the principle of independence or some weaker
variant, putting a simple, "opener" question (or maybe two). It does not
address the substance of an independence treaty.
2. In order that the people of Scotland can decide democratically and
legitimately, the FINAL NEGOTIATED TREATY or SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL must be
put before the electorate and people in a legally binding referendum
ballot, after the government and others have organised comprehensive
public briefing, detailing and explaining what is on offer.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
1. The referendum as proposed (February 2012) by the SNP led scottish
government will be about the principle of independence or some weaker
variant, putting a simple, "opener" question (or maybe two). It does not
address the substance of an independence treaty.
2. In order that the people of Scotland can decide democratically and
legitimately, the FINAL NEGOTIATED TREATY or SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL must be
put before the electorate and people in a legally binding referendum
ballot, after the government and others have organised comprehensive
public briefing, detailing and explaining what is on offer.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
JNugent
Feb 27, 2012, 3:24:36 PM2/27/12
to
If they want to go out on their own, they want to go out on their own.
Don't start talking them out of it.
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Feb 27, 2012, 5:34:48 PM2/27/12
to
have criticised the one-stage referendum proposal of the SNP government.
That said, the English & Co. "good riddance" attitude looks short
sighted and to view the Scots as an economic burden to the UK may be
arithmetically incorrect.
The I&Rgb Campaign has no position on scottish independence.
If you want to discuss whether a separation of England + remaining UK
from Scotland would be beneficial then please start a thread about this.
On the question of how to organise the independence referendum(s):
"5.11 It has been suggested that there might be two referendums: on the
principle of independence, to give the Scottish Government authority to
negotiate; and following Acts of Independence being passed by the
Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. A second referendum would
recognise the significance of the decision for Scotland to become
independent and allow the people of Scotland the final say on
the matter. On the other hand, there are strong arguments against such
an approach. One referendum on the principle of independence could give
the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government sufficient
clarity and confidence that the people wish Scotland to become an
independent state. The prospect of a further referendum could reduce the
certainty of the choice facing the people at the referendum,
and reduce the impact of the decision that the people make. As a
democratically representative legislature, the Scottish Parliament could
carry forward the people’s will to conclude the arrangements
to deliver independence." Source: Scot. gov. constitutional conversation
2007.
Not too convincing ! A ballot on the final treaty would clearly bring
benefit.
Message has been deleted
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Feb 28, 2012, 4:52:00 AM2/28/12
to
soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote
> to criticise what the people have chosen to do through the ballot box.
>
A first ballot to see if there is a majority for independence.
If Yes, then Referendum II to decide on the content of a treaty with the
UK. Failing to carry out the second ballot would be like buying a pig in
a poke. There are many potential tricks and traps. We the People should
be made aware of the treaty's content before we must commit ourselves.
The decision is very serious, will affect the lives of many generations
and so should be based on full knowledge.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
<http://iniref.wordpress.com>
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2012 19:20, INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two theses about the Scottish independence referendum:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The referendum as proposed (February 2012) by the SNP led
>>>> scottish government will be about the principle of independence or
>>>> some weaker variant, putting a simple, "opener" question (or maybe
>>>> two). It does not address the substance of an independence treaty.
>>>>
>>>> 2. In order that the people of Scotland can decide democratically
>>>> and legitimately, the FINAL NEGOTIATED TREATY or SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
>>>> must be put
>>>> before the electorate and people in a legally binding referendum
>>>> ballot, after the government and others have organised comprehensive
>>>> public briefing,
>>>> detailing and explaining what is on offer.
>>>>
>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>
>>> Oi!
>>>
>>> If they want to go out on their own, they want to go out on their
>>> own.
>>>
>>> Don't start talking them out of it.
>>
>> As a Campaign we (iniref*I&Rgb) want to encourage good democracy so we
>> have criticised the one-stage referendum proposal of the SNP
>> government.
>
> It what the people want and that's good democracy. You are in no position
>>> On 26/02/2012 19:20, INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two theses about the Scottish independence referendum:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The referendum as proposed (February 2012) by the SNP led
>>>> scottish government will be about the principle of independence or
>>>> some weaker variant, putting a simple, "opener" question (or maybe
>>>> two). It does not address the substance of an independence treaty.
>>>>
>>>> 2. In order that the people of Scotland can decide democratically
>>>> and legitimately, the FINAL NEGOTIATED TREATY or SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
>>>> must be put
>>>> before the electorate and people in a legally binding referendum
>>>> ballot, after the government and others have organised comprehensive
>>>> public briefing,
>>>> detailing and explaining what is on offer.
>>>>
>>>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>>>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>
>>> Oi!
>>>
>>> If they want to go out on their own, they want to go out on their
>>> own.
>>>
>>> Don't start talking them out of it.
>>
>> As a Campaign we (iniref*I&Rgb) want to encourage good democracy so we
>> have criticised the one-stage referendum proposal of the SNP
>> government.
>
> to criticise what the people have chosen to do through the ballot box.
>
A first ballot to see if there is a majority for independence.
If Yes, then Referendum II to decide on the content of a treaty with the
UK. Failing to carry out the second ballot would be like buying a pig in
a poke. There are many potential tricks and traps. We the People should
be made aware of the treaty's content before we must commit ourselves.
The decision is very serious, will affect the lives of many generations
and so should be based on full knowledge.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Message has been deleted
Owain
Feb 28, 2012, 5:40:35 PM2/28/12
to
On Feb 28, 1:37 pm, soupdragon wrote:
> In the
> end, the people to do the negotiation are the Scottish Government who
> have been elected by the people with a mandate to carry out these
> discussions.
The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
election - Wikipedia)
Owain
> In the
> end, the people to do the negotiation are the Scottish Government who
> have been elected by the people with a mandate to carry out these
> discussions.
The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
election - Wikipedia)
Owain
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Feb 29, 2012, 5:43:22 AM2/29/12
to
Owain wrote:
> The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
> independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
> elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
>
> Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
> negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
> Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
> election - Wikipedia)
>
> Owain
>
>
>
This strays off topic because the thread is about finding the best way
> The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
> independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
> elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
>
> Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
> negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
> Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
> election - Wikipedia)
>
> Owain
>
>
>
to enable the people of Scotland to decide about their national status.
The opinion presented here was that there should be an "opener" ballot
for or against independence. Only after an independence treaty has been
negotiated would the people then finally decide whether or not to accept
its terms in a second ballot.
Owain takes us back to the much discussed question of whether the
scottish gov. has a right to negotiate for independence. This is a moot
point which could be debated until the highland cows come home.
The people of Scotland have a clear right to claim national independence
if they so wish. Numerous countries have successfully demonstrated this
right, those which were part of the british empire, those which freed
themselves from the USSR ("soviet union"), countries of southern Europe
and others.
This right of the scots was reportedly conceded by UK conservatives such
as M. Thatcher and J. Major.
At a very recent official meeting in Edinburgh, a public law professor
pointed out that, as the people of Scotland have a clear right to claim
national independence, there MUST be a way for them to put forward this
claim.
So let us get on with the job!
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
®i©ardo
Feb 29, 2012, 7:23:53 AM2/29/12
to
On 29/02/2012 10:43, INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
> Owain wrote:
>> The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
>> independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
>> elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
>>
>> Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
>> negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
>> Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
>> election - Wikipedia)
>>
>> Owain
>>
>>
>>
> This strays off topic because the thread is about finding the best way
> to enable the people of Scotland to decide about their national status.
> The opinion presented here was that there should be an "opener" ballot
> for or against independence. Only after an independence treaty has been
> negotiated would the people then finally decide whether or not to accept
> its terms in a second ballot.
>
> Owain takes us back to the much discussed question of whether the
> scottish gov. has a right to negotiate for independence. This is a moot
> point which could be debated until the highland cows come home.
>
> The people of Scotland have a clear right to claim national independence
> if they so wish. Numerous countries have successfully demonstrated this
> right, those which were part of the british empire, those which freed
> themselves from the USSR ("soviet union"), countries of southern Europe
> and others.
>
There is a difference in Scotland's relationship with the UK to those
> Owain wrote:
>> The Scottish Government (of any political hue) have no mandate for
>> independence negotiations, as it's outside their remit. They were
>> elected for the purpose of running the devolved Scottish Government.
>>
>> Scottish MPs at Westminster have a mandate for independence
>> negotiations, but the SNP only has 6 / 59 Scottish seats at
>> Westminster and just under 1/5th of the Scottish vote (2010 UK
>> election - Wikipedia)
>>
>> Owain
>>
>>
>>
> This strays off topic because the thread is about finding the best way
> to enable the people of Scotland to decide about their national status.
> The opinion presented here was that there should be an "opener" ballot
> for or against independence. Only after an independence treaty has been
> negotiated would the people then finally decide whether or not to accept
> its terms in a second ballot.
>
> Owain takes us back to the much discussed question of whether the
> scottish gov. has a right to negotiate for independence. This is a moot
> point which could be debated until the highland cows come home.
>
> The people of Scotland have a clear right to claim national independence
> if they so wish. Numerous countries have successfully demonstrated this
> right, those which were part of the british empire, those which freed
> themselves from the USSR ("soviet union"), countries of southern Europe
> and others.
>
you mention, but it's probably too subtle for you to understand.
> This right of the scots was reportedly conceded by UK conservatives such
> as M. Thatcher and J. Major.
>
> At a very recent official meeting in Edinburgh, a public law professor
> pointed out that, as the people of Scotland have a clear right to claim
> national independence, there MUST be a way for them to put forward this
> claim.
>
> So let us get on with the job!
>
"national independence", regardless of the wishes of other parts of the UK.
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Moving things in still pictures
Nkosi (ama-ecosse)
Feb 29, 2012, 8:14:15 AM2/29/12
to
funded by a block grant given to them form the UK government as the
same criteria as all other members of the Union. They would then of
course have to account for all taxes to the Union and those taxes
generated outside of the English borders can then be allocate dto
where they should be. Either Wales Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Problem with that of course is it will then be apparent who funds who
in the Union Zoo.
Nkosi
Owain
Feb 29, 2012, 11:05:35 AM2/29/12
to
On Feb 29, 10:43 am, INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
> Owain takes us back to the much discussed question of whether the
> scottish gov. has a right to negotiate for independence. This is a moot
> point which could be debated until the highland cows come home.
It's not that moot - it is not a devolved power. The Scottish
> Owain takes us back to the much discussed question of whether the
> scottish gov. has a right to negotiate for independence. This is a moot
> point which could be debated until the highland cows come home.
Parliament has as much authority to take Scotland out of the UK as my
local council has to declare the local library a nuclear-free zone.
> At a very recent official meeting in Edinburgh, a public law professor
> pointed out that, as the people of Scotland have a clear right to claim
> national independence, there MUST be a way for them to put forward this
> claim.
pro-referendum) MPs from Scottish constituencies to Westminster. The
next general election may be interesting; the last one wasn't (in
Scotland - no seats changed compared to 2005).
Owain
®i©ardo
Feb 29, 2012, 11:10:44 AM2/29/12
to
Alternatively FULL independence for England. What's sauce for for one
group should be sauce for all the others in the group.
They would then of
> course have to account for all taxes to the Union and those taxes
> generated outside of the English borders can then be allocate dto
> where they should be. Either Wales Northern Ireland or Scotland.
> Problem with that of course is it will then be apparent who funds who
> in the Union Zoo.
>
Altern
> Nkosi
®i©ardo
Feb 29, 2012, 12:03:34 PM2/29/12
to
On 29/02/2012 16:10, 展奄rdo wrote:
> On 29/02/2012 13:14, Nkosi (ama-ecosse) wrote:
> On 29/02/2012 13:14, Nkosi (ama-ecosse) wrote:
sauce for all the other parts."
> They would then of
>> course have to account for all taxes to the Union and those taxes
>> generated outside of the English borders can then be allocate dto
>> where they should be. Either Wales Northern Ireland or Scotland.
>> Problem with that of course is it will then be apparent who funds who
>> in the Union Zoo.
>>
>
> Definitely agreed.
>
> Altern
>> Nkosi
>
>
--
Moving things in still pictures
www.FastStone.org
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Feb 29, 2012, 1:23:13 PM2/29/12
to
independence (or alternative such as devo - max or -plus). One way to do
this is with a plebiscite on a documented independence treaty after that
has been negotiated with the UK government.
Do you think that the UK parliament would grant the request of a handful
of scots MPs?
>
> Owain
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Feb 29, 2012, 2:28:13 PM2/29/12
to
On 29/02/2012 18:44, soupdragon wrote:
> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:-Oidnf3FTOP-
> x9PSnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
The legislation passed by a previous administration with a Scottish born
Prime Minister, a Scottish born Chancellor, plus an over representation
of Scottish MPs at Westminster who STILL have the "right" to meddle in
England's affairs, whilst claiming that those of Scotland are
"sacrosanct". It freely granted rights here and there relating to
"representation" and "self government" and "own parliaments" to minority
groups, whilst totally ignoring the wishes and rights of the vast
majority of the UK's population.
> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:-Oidnf3FTOP-
> x9PSnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
>
>>>> England should also have it's own devolved parliament and building
>>>> funded by a block grant given to them form the UK government as the
>>>> same criteria as all other members of the Union.
>>>
>>> Agreed!
>>>
>>> Alternatively FULL independence for England. What's sauce for for one
>>> group should be sauce for all the others in the group.
>>>
>>
>> Let me say that again "What's sauce for one part of the group should be
>> sauce for all the other parts."
>
> So what's holding you back?
>>>> England should also have it's own devolved parliament and building
>>>> funded by a block grant given to them form the UK government as the
>>>> same criteria as all other members of the Union.
>>>
>>> Agreed!
>>>
>>> Alternatively FULL independence for England. What's sauce for for one
>>> group should be sauce for all the others in the group.
>>>
>>
>> Let me say that again "What's sauce for one part of the group should be
>> sauce for all the other parts."
>
The legislation passed by a previous administration with a Scottish born
Prime Minister, a Scottish born Chancellor, plus an over representation
of Scottish MPs at Westminster who STILL have the "right" to meddle in
England's affairs, whilst claiming that those of Scotland are
"sacrosanct". It freely granted rights here and there relating to
"representation" and "self government" and "own parliaments" to minority
groups, whilst totally ignoring the wishes and rights of the vast
majority of the UK's population.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Feb 29, 2012, 4:11:09 PM2/29/12
to
> news:oeWdnT4LQZnW4dPS...@giganews.com:
> bussed in English MPs to hijack Scottish Questions due to the lack
> of Tory MPs in Scotland. As you say, sauce for the goose..
> that was overwhelmingly rejected by the English voters?
>
Don't talk through your arse, although I must admit you've got it down
to a fine art.
How could a referendum limited solely to the North East of England,
representing less than 5% of England's population speak for the entire
English nation? On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly
happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on
a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland
not being allowed a say?
Why SHOULD England accept anything less than NATIONAL devolution if that
was what was being given free, with or without Green Shield Stamps,
everywhere else.
You have to compare like with like.
>
>> On 29/02/2012 18:44, soupdragon wrote:
>>> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:-Oidnf3FTOP-
>>> x9PSnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>>>> England should also have it's own devolved parliament and building
>>>>>> funded by a block grant given to them form the UK government as the
>>>>>> same criteria as all other members of the Union.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed!
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively FULL independence for England. What's sauce for for
> one
>>>>> group should be sauce for all the others in the group.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me say that again "What's sauce for one part of the group should
> be
>>>> sauce for all the other parts."
>>>
>>> So what's holding you back?
>>
>> The legislation passed by a previous administration with a Scottish
> born
>> Prime Minister, a Scottish born Chancellor, plus an over representation
>> of Scottish MPs at Westminster who STILL have the "right" to meddle in
>> England's affairs,
>
> ..as English MPs had for Scottish affairs for over 200 years..
>> On 29/02/2012 18:44, soupdragon wrote:
>>> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:-Oidnf3FTOP-
>>> x9PSnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>>>> England should also have it's own devolved parliament and building
>>>>>> funded by a block grant given to them form the UK government as the
>>>>>> same criteria as all other members of the Union.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed!
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively FULL independence for England. What's sauce for for
> one
>>>>> group should be sauce for all the others in the group.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me say that again "What's sauce for one part of the group should
> be
>>>> sauce for all the other parts."
>>>
>>> So what's holding you back?
>>
>> The legislation passed by a previous administration with a Scottish
> born
>> Prime Minister, a Scottish born Chancellor, plus an over representation
>> of Scottish MPs at Westminster who STILL have the "right" to meddle in
>> England's affairs,
>
>
>> whilst claiming that those of Scotland are
>> "sacrosanct".
>
> Not if they are held in Westminster. The Thatcher government regularly
>> whilst claiming that those of Scotland are
>> "sacrosanct".
>
> bussed in English MPs to hijack Scottish Questions due to the lack
> of Tory MPs in Scotland. As you say, sauce for the goose..
>
>> It freely granted rights here and there relating to
>> "representation" and "self government" and "own parliaments" to
> minority
>> groups, whilst totally ignoring the wishes and rights of the vast
>> majority of the UK's population.
>
> Really? So you missed the 2004 referendum offering regional devolution
>> It freely granted rights here and there relating to
>> "representation" and "self government" and "own parliaments" to
> minority
>> groups, whilst totally ignoring the wishes and rights of the vast
>> majority of the UK's population.
>
> that was overwhelmingly rejected by the English voters?
>
Don't talk through your arse, although I must admit you've got it down
to a fine art.
How could a referendum limited solely to the North East of England,
representing less than 5% of England's population speak for the entire
English nation? On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly
happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on
a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland
not being allowed a say?
Why SHOULD England accept anything less than NATIONAL devolution if that
was what was being given free, with or without Green Shield Stamps,
everywhere else.
You have to compare like with like.
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 1, 2012, 12:41:07 PM3/1/12
to
On 01/03/2012 17:03, soupdragon wrote:
> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:QcWdnTaJU436CdPSnZ2dnUVZ_j-
> dn...@giganews.com:
> That seems to be your modus operandi given your lack of knowledge on the
> the subjects you pronounce on.
> having a national referendum. The North East was the first of what
> would be rolling referenda, to be followed by North West, Yorkshire and
> Humber, and so forth. But the rejection was so overwhelming in what was
> seen to be the area considered most likely to be favourable, and the
> polls elsewhere showed such an overwhelming rejection, the whole
> thing was scrapped.
>
Let me say again: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
> ignored'.
I'm not "whinging" - that's an an SNP speciality - I'm merely stating
FACTS: the population of England, unlike the population of Wales and the
population of Scotland, were NOT offered a vote on English devolution
You were given the chance and turned it down with
> almost 80% opposed.
No, less than 5% of the population were consulted and of that 5%, 80% of
them were opposed. No one else in England got a say in the matter - we
were denied any choice in the matter. England was NOT offered what was
given to Scotland and Wales - national devolution - it was merely
offered "regional assemblies" and only one region was allowed a vote,
thus the Government disenfranchised the remaining 95% of England's
population. Note also that the one area selected had a smaller
population than either Wales or Scotland!
All that is required is equal treatment of the people of England
compared with the people of Wales and Scotland. It's not difficult,
unless, of course, your bigotry totally blinds you to any common sense
analysis of the situation.
> ®i©ardo<he...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:QcWdnTaJU436CdPSnZ2dnUVZ_j-
> dn...@giganews.com:
> the subjects you pronounce on.
>
>> How could a referendum limited solely to the North East of England,
>> representing less than 5% of England's population speak for the entire
>> English nation? On that basis you, presumably, would have been
> perfectly
>> happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely
> on
>> a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland
>> not being allowed a say?
>>
>> Why SHOULD England accept anything less than NATIONAL devolution if
> that
>> was what was being given free, with or without Green Shield Stamps,
>> everywhere else.
>>
>> You have to compare like with like.
>
> You really don't know anything about this at all, do you? You *were*
>> How could a referendum limited solely to the North East of England,
>> representing less than 5% of England's population speak for the entire
>> English nation? On that basis you, presumably, would have been
> perfectly
>> happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely
> on
>> a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland
>> not being allowed a say?
>>
>> Why SHOULD England accept anything less than NATIONAL devolution if
> that
>> was what was being given free, with or without Green Shield Stamps,
>> everywhere else.
>>
>> You have to compare like with like.
>
> having a national referendum. The North East was the first of what
> would be rolling referenda, to be followed by North West, Yorkshire and
> Humber, and so forth. But the rejection was so overwhelming in what was
> seen to be the area considered most likely to be favourable, and the
> polls elsewhere showed such an overwhelming rejection, the whole
> thing was scrapped.
>
Let me say again: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
perfectly happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
> So don't come whinging you weren't asked and were 'totally
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
> ignored'.
I'm not "whinging" - that's an an SNP speciality - I'm merely stating
FACTS: the population of England, unlike the population of Wales and the
population of Scotland, were NOT offered a vote on English devolution
You were given the chance and turned it down with
> almost 80% opposed.
No, less than 5% of the population were consulted and of that 5%, 80% of
them were opposed. No one else in England got a say in the matter - we
were denied any choice in the matter. England was NOT offered what was
given to Scotland and Wales - national devolution - it was merely
offered "regional assemblies" and only one region was allowed a vote,
thus the Government disenfranchised the remaining 95% of England's
population. Note also that the one area selected had a smaller
population than either Wales or Scotland!
All that is required is equal treatment of the people of England
compared with the people of Wales and Scotland. It's not difficult,
unless, of course, your bigotry totally blinds you to any common sense
analysis of the situation.
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 1, 2012, 2:47:51 PM3/1/12
to
> news:dNOdndHH05ozKdLS...@giganews.com:
> Wriggle wriggle wriggle. It was a rolling referenda. Two more were
> proposed. Polls showed that they were even more opposed to it, so
> it was abandoned as a lost cause.
How would anyone know if they weren't held? ENGLAND WAS NOT CONSULTED!
You can tap dance all you like
> but the decisions were taken by English voters
NO, the English voters were denied any part in the decision making process.
and English politicians
> like John Prescott, and it's abandonment was widely welcomed by the
> English media so, as I said, your claim that you were 'totally ignored'
> is demonstrably wrong. You had the opportunity for a full rolling
> referendum and turned it down. End of.
>
It obviously wasn't a "rolling referenda" as it didn't roll anywhere -
it was just run past a few English voters in a single location by a
puppet of the trade union movement who no more represents England than
my dog, and was then abandoned by a bent Government with a Scottish born
Prime Minister, a Scottish Chancellor and a disproportionate number of
Scottish MPs meddling in England's affairs. We, the people of England,
were not given any choice in the matter.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Yet again you are talking through your arse.
If you consider that is the way to run a fair campaign why wasn't it
done that way in Wales and Scotland? As YOU have pointed out this
particular referendum was about regional assemblies, which was a
complete sham and asked for by nobody. It had absolutely sweet FA to do
with devolution for the English people because THAT was NEVER on the
agenda. I realise that with the depth of you biases you will never
concede that comparing like with like would be a far fairer way of
looking at this, rather than drawing comparisons with the likes of the
Welsh Highland Railway and Network Rail - which, of course, aren't
"likes" at all, they are totally different concepts.
Pray God that England does get the chance of an exclusive referendum on
whether to remain part of the UK. The answer is very likely to be a
resounding "no" and it would be sweet music to listen the the squealing
then from north of the border about how unfair it is because people like
you seem to consider that only Scotland has a divine right to such things.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9017866/Amid-the-talk-of-Scottish-independence-its-now-time-to-answer-the-English-Question.html
> proposed. Polls showed that they were even more opposed to it, so
> it was abandoned as a lost cause.
How would anyone know if they weren't held? ENGLAND WAS NOT CONSULTED!
You can tap dance all you like
> but the decisions were taken by English voters
NO, the English voters were denied any part in the decision making process.
and English politicians
> like John Prescott, and it's abandonment was widely welcomed by the
> English media so, as I said, your claim that you were 'totally ignored'
> is demonstrably wrong. You had the opportunity for a full rolling
> referendum and turned it down. End of.
>
It obviously wasn't a "rolling referenda" as it didn't roll anywhere -
it was just run past a few English voters in a single location by a
puppet of the trade union movement who no more represents England than
my dog, and was then abandoned by a bent Government with a Scottish born
Prime Minister, a Scottish Chancellor and a disproportionate number of
Scottish MPs meddling in England's affairs. We, the people of England,
were not given any choice in the matter.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Yet again you are talking through your arse.
If you consider that is the way to run a fair campaign why wasn't it
done that way in Wales and Scotland? As YOU have pointed out this
particular referendum was about regional assemblies, which was a
complete sham and asked for by nobody. It had absolutely sweet FA to do
with devolution for the English people because THAT was NEVER on the
agenda. I realise that with the depth of you biases you will never
concede that comparing like with like would be a far fairer way of
looking at this, rather than drawing comparisons with the likes of the
Welsh Highland Railway and Network Rail - which, of course, aren't
"likes" at all, they are totally different concepts.
Pray God that England does get the chance of an exclusive referendum on
whether to remain part of the UK. The answer is very likely to be a
resounding "no" and it would be sweet music to listen the the squealing
then from north of the border about how unfair it is because people like
you seem to consider that only Scotland has a divine right to such things.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9017866/Amid-the-talk-of-Scottish-independence-its-now-time-to-answer-the-English-Question.html
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 1, 2012, 4:45:11 PM3/1/12
to
> news:I_GdnQ9Qw77-T9LS...@giganews.com:
> More wriggling nonsense. A poll was carried out throughout England in
> which they were offered 3 options, an English parliament, devolved
> assemblies or the status quo. It was carried out in 2002. The poll showed
> that almost 60% favoured the status quo, 20% a devolved assembly and
> less than 10% wanted an English parliament. Despite this, it was decided
> to press ahead with the devolved assembly option which seemed to offer a
> better opportunity of succcess that the English parliament which was
> rejected out of hand by the vast majority - including your favourite rag,
> the Torygraph - with a rolling referendum. You're right it didn't roll
> anywhere as it crashed and burned at the first hurdle and it was obvious
> it was going to fail everywhere else even more disasterously as the
> English made it clear they weren't interested. So the next two were
> cancelled by English politicans to a loud cheer by all the English media
> including, once again, the Torygraph. So to try and claim you
> weren't consulted is patent nonsense.The opportunity was there for not
> only devolved assemblies, but a seperate parliament but you weren't
> interested. You had the choice and you rejected it. Now here you are
> whinging disengenously about ' not being consulted' Spare me..
> and preferred the status quo.
> and not know what they want, before rejecting everything in the
> mistaken belief they still have an empire.
>
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/90178
>> 66/Amid-the-talk-of-Scottish-independence-its-now-time-to-answer-the-En
>> glish-Question.html
>
> Predictable drivel from the Torygraph.
>
>
Thank you for setting out your biases so clearly. Do they still publish
the Daily Worker?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.htm#1
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.htm
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-english-parliament-bill
> which they were offered 3 options, an English parliament, devolved
> assemblies or the status quo. It was carried out in 2002. The poll showed
> that almost 60% favoured the status quo, 20% a devolved assembly and
> less than 10% wanted an English parliament. Despite this, it was decided
> to press ahead with the devolved assembly option which seemed to offer a
> better opportunity of succcess that the English parliament which was
> rejected out of hand by the vast majority - including your favourite rag,
> the Torygraph - with a rolling referendum. You're right it didn't roll
> anywhere as it crashed and burned at the first hurdle and it was obvious
> it was going to fail everywhere else even more disasterously as the
> English made it clear they weren't interested. So the next two were
> cancelled by English politicans to a loud cheer by all the English media
> including, once again, the Torygraph. So to try and claim you
> weren't consulted is patent nonsense.The opportunity was there for not
> only devolved assemblies, but a seperate parliament but you weren't
> interested. You had the choice and you rejected it. Now here you are
> whinging disengenously about ' not being consulted' Spare me..
>
>
>> Pray God that England does get the chance of an exclusive referendum
>> on whether to remain part of the UK.
>
> So what's stopping you? Oh! That's right! You went down that route before
>
>> Pray God that England does get the chance of an exclusive referendum
>> on whether to remain part of the UK.
>
> and preferred the status quo.
>
> >The answer is very likely to be a
>> resounding "no"
>
> Just like it was in 2002 and 2004? Nah..
> >The answer is very likely to be a
>> resounding "no"
>
>
>> and it would be sweet music to listen the the
>> squealing then from north of the border about how unfair it is because
>> people like you seem to consider that only Scotland has a divine right
>> to such things.
>
> It'll be squeals of laughter as, once again, the English will dither
>> and it would be sweet music to listen the the
>> squealing then from north of the border about how unfair it is because
>> people like you seem to consider that only Scotland has a divine right
>> to such things.
>
> and not know what they want, before rejecting everything in the
> mistaken belief they still have an empire.
>
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/90178
>> 66/Amid-the-talk-of-Scottish-independence-its-now-time-to-answer-the-En
>> glish-Question.html
>
> Predictable drivel from the Torygraph.
>
>
Thank you for setting out your biases so clearly. Do they still publish
the Daily Worker?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.htm#1
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.htm
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-english-parliament-bill
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 2, 2012, 7:04:06 AM3/2/12
to
> news:-ZadnXWqHuNCcNLS...@giganews.com:
> Reduced to petty non sequiturs now in the face of irrefutable facts?
>
They are not "irrefutable facts" they are merely your personal opinions.
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>> htm#1
>>
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>> htm
>>
>> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-engli
>> sh-parliament-bill
>
> Thank you for confirming what I said, and demonstarting the hypocrisy of
> English people like yourself, by giving links to the 1997/98 bill
> proposals before parliament.
What is hypocritical about showing factual events?
So not only was it discussed amongst the
> representatives of the English people in parliament in 1997/98,
..but not exclusively by them. Whilst the the concept of a referendum
relating specifically to the formation of an English Parliament was
raise and debated it was shunted aside by the then UK Government who,
whilst willing to allow such for the Welsh and Scots, were, for reasons
of their own, unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the English. This
is probably best explained by the disproportionate number of Scots in
the then Cabinet - a cabal of 32%, yet with Scotland, in population
terms, representing less than 8.5% of the people of the UK. There was
also the cunning move on the Scottish Devolution vote - successfully
implemented - by this same cabal to deny disenfranchise those many Scots
who have found life to be better for them by choosing to live elsewhere
in the United Kingdom.
> people themselves were polled in 2002 in which a vast majority rejected
> any change,
The ICM poll in 2002 actually shows 48% to be in favour of an English
Parliament, 28% in favour of Regional Assemblies and the balance to be
"Don't Knows". If you see that as a "vast majority" rejecting any change
I feel very sorry for you.
including the Torygraph.
>
To suggest that the Daily Telegraph is the determining factor in these
matters is simply nonsense.
> Despite all this opposition, they were given another opportunity 2 years
> later through a series of rolling referendum which failed so badly to
> attract any support for devolution in the teeth of opposition
> particularly from the London media it was scrapped to a loud hurrah
> from the Telegraph.
>
But the whole thing was flawed from outset. The ONLY area where there
was a preference for Regional Assemblies in the NOP 2002 Poll was the
extreme South West - which includes Cornwall - where we see 56% in
favour, 24% against and 20% "Don't Knows". However, given that the
proportion of the population involved was about 3%, it does rather put
those figures in perspective.
> Now the boot's on the other foot, suddenly you're all bleating 'It's not
> fair, we want a parliament' including the biggest hypocrit of all, the
> Daily Telegraph - the newspaper that back in 2002 and 2004 campaigned
> relentlessly against any form of English devolution and certainly not
> a seperate English parliament - and people like you dishonestly claiming
> the English people were 'totally ignored'. You weren't ignored, you were
> asked but weren't interested.
>
The 2004 poll was rather different in that it included the question
relating to:
"Scottish and Welsh members of the UK Parliament having their voting
rights restricted to prevent them from voting on England-only issues."
...which was favoured by 46.53%, reducing the English Parliament support
to 23.76%, so we have over 70% in favour of the English being able to
control their own destiny against 10.89% in favour of that being done by
regional assemblies.
it's interesting to note that when a straight "Yes" "No" poll is
conducted relating specifically to establishing an English Parliament,
as in November 2006, with the question:
"Would you be in favour or against the establishment of an English
Parliament within the UK, with similar powers to those currently enjoyed
by the Scottish Parliament?"
...the following emerges:
68.43% were in favour and 25.3% were against.
In April 2009 a YouGov poll established that:
"Setting up an English Parliament to decide matters that affect only
England" attracted a 58% support.
In 2010, the question:
"England should have its own parliament with similar powers to those of
the Scottish Parliament" attracted a 68% support.
The English people were not "asked" other than through opinion polls. A
very small proportion of the English electorate were given a vote, but
that vote did NOT offer a devolved Parliament. Twist and turn as much as
you wish, apart from the bill presented to Parliament and rejected the
ONLY thing offered to England was regional assemblies and Unlike with
the Welsh and the Scots with national devolution polls only a tiny
proportion of the English people were consulted on an official basis.
However, we have the right to change our minds, however annoying you may
find that.
>
They are not "irrefutable facts" they are merely your personal opinions.
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>> htm#1
>>
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>> htm
>>
>> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-engli
>> sh-parliament-bill
>
> Thank you for confirming what I said, and demonstarting the hypocrisy of
> English people like yourself, by giving links to the 1997/98 bill
> proposals before parliament.
What is hypocritical about showing factual events?
So not only was it discussed amongst the
> representatives of the English people in parliament in 1997/98,
..but not exclusively by them. Whilst the the concept of a referendum
relating specifically to the formation of an English Parliament was
raise and debated it was shunted aside by the then UK Government who,
whilst willing to allow such for the Welsh and Scots, were, for reasons
of their own, unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the English. This
is probably best explained by the disproportionate number of Scots in
the then Cabinet - a cabal of 32%, yet with Scotland, in population
terms, representing less than 8.5% of the people of the UK. There was
also the cunning move on the Scottish Devolution vote - successfully
implemented - by this same cabal to deny disenfranchise those many Scots
who have found life to be better for them by choosing to live elsewhere
in the United Kingdom.
> people themselves were polled in 2002 in which a vast majority rejected
> any change,
The ICM poll in 2002 actually shows 48% to be in favour of an English
Parliament, 28% in favour of Regional Assemblies and the balance to be
"Don't Knows". If you see that as a "vast majority" rejecting any change
I feel very sorry for you.
including the Torygraph.
>
To suggest that the Daily Telegraph is the determining factor in these
matters is simply nonsense.
> Despite all this opposition, they were given another opportunity 2 years
> later through a series of rolling referendum which failed so badly to
> attract any support for devolution in the teeth of opposition
> particularly from the London media it was scrapped to a loud hurrah
> from the Telegraph.
>
But the whole thing was flawed from outset. The ONLY area where there
was a preference for Regional Assemblies in the NOP 2002 Poll was the
extreme South West - which includes Cornwall - where we see 56% in
favour, 24% against and 20% "Don't Knows". However, given that the
proportion of the population involved was about 3%, it does rather put
those figures in perspective.
> Now the boot's on the other foot, suddenly you're all bleating 'It's not
> fair, we want a parliament' including the biggest hypocrit of all, the
> Daily Telegraph - the newspaper that back in 2002 and 2004 campaigned
> relentlessly against any form of English devolution and certainly not
> a seperate English parliament - and people like you dishonestly claiming
> the English people were 'totally ignored'. You weren't ignored, you were
> asked but weren't interested.
>
The 2004 poll was rather different in that it included the question
relating to:
"Scottish and Welsh members of the UK Parliament having their voting
rights restricted to prevent them from voting on England-only issues."
...which was favoured by 46.53%, reducing the English Parliament support
to 23.76%, so we have over 70% in favour of the English being able to
control their own destiny against 10.89% in favour of that being done by
regional assemblies.
it's interesting to note that when a straight "Yes" "No" poll is
conducted relating specifically to establishing an English Parliament,
as in November 2006, with the question:
"Would you be in favour or against the establishment of an English
Parliament within the UK, with similar powers to those currently enjoyed
by the Scottish Parliament?"
...the following emerges:
68.43% were in favour and 25.3% were against.
In April 2009 a YouGov poll established that:
"Setting up an English Parliament to decide matters that affect only
England" attracted a 58% support.
In 2010, the question:
"England should have its own parliament with similar powers to those of
the Scottish Parliament" attracted a 68% support.
The English people were not "asked" other than through opinion polls. A
very small proportion of the English electorate were given a vote, but
that vote did NOT offer a devolved Parliament. Twist and turn as much as
you wish, apart from the bill presented to Parliament and rejected the
ONLY thing offered to England was regional assemblies and Unlike with
the Welsh and the Scots with national devolution polls only a tiny
proportion of the English people were consulted on an official basis.
However, we have the right to change our minds, however annoying you may
find that.
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 2, 2012, 3:29:28 PM3/2/12
to
> news:SZGdnSsLWKy8Ks3S...@giganews.com:
> On the contrary, they are easily checkable facts. Torygraph opposed an
> English parliament in 2002-04?
So what? They, as free agents, can approve or oppose whatever they wish.
Go check its back issues. English people
> were ignored(your claim)?
They were by the Government, which is the whole point! The then
Government had their own Scottish biased course to follow and nothing
was going to change that.
You provided the Hansard link yourself to
> show that not only were they consulted through polls,
The Government of the day did NOT consult anyone as any polls were
undertaken by privately sponsored means.
but also through
> their elected representative as well as a rolling referendum that they
> rejected.
Obviously they did. No-one wanted a cheapskate solution which in no way
addressed the provision of an English devolved parliament.
"On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly happy for the
Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on a referendum
held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland not being
allowed a say?"
English people rejected a parliament by a substantial margin
> when polled? Here's the IPSOS/Mori results between 2001 to 2003
>
> 2001 2002 2003
>
> No change 57 56 55
> Devolved assembies 23 20 24
> Eglish Parliament 16 17 16
>
> And what became apparent from all the polls was that the place where there
> was most apparent enthusiasm for some form of devolution in England was
> the North East and the preferred choice was for regional assemblies. The
> most resistance was in the South East wher 'no change' was the preferred
> option followed by lukewarm support for devolved assembly and even fewer
> for a seperate parliament. yet when the went ahead with the rolling
> referendum, the area which most enthusiastically supported assembly in
> the polls, so comprehensively rejected it, it made the rest of the exercise
> pointless.
>
However, a sample of less than 5% of England's population is hardly
scientific. And, let me say again:
"On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly happy for the
Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on a referendum
held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland not being
allowed a say?"
>
Because, even then, there were aspirations amongst some English MPs for
their constituents to be treated as fairly as those living other than in
England.
>> is probably best explained by the disproportionate number of Scots in
>> the then Cabinet - a cabal of 32%, yet with Scotland, in population
>> terms, representing less than 8.5% of the people of the UK. There was
>> also the cunning move on the Scottish Devolution vote - successfully
>> implemented - by this same cabal to deny disenfranchise those many Scots
>> who have found life to be better for them by choosing to live elsewhere
>> in the United Kingdom.
>
> yeah yeah yeah. Blame everyone else for England's failure to engage with an
> opportunity.
If you are talking about the "devolution vote" NO OPPORTUNITY was given
to the vast majority of English voters to have their say.
Let me say YET AGAIN: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
> polling booths. No one else made you vote so overwhelmingly to reject the
> whole idea. And no one else made the Telegraph campaign relentlessly
> against the idea back in the day.
>
Silly boy. We were never allowed to get as far as the polling booths on
that subject.
>
>>> people themselves were polled in 2002 in which a vast majority rejected
>>> any change,
>>
>> The ICM poll in 2002 actually shows 48% to be in favour of an English
>> Parliament, 28% in favour of Regional Assemblies and the balance to be
>> "Don't Knows". If you see that as a "vast majority" rejecting any change
>
> Really? The Ipsos/MORI poll above shows a quite different picture. The MORI
> poll was the official one.
>
"Official"? So no other poll has any credibility? Come along, please.
>> I feel very sorry for you.
>
> Why? I'm finding your thrashing around highly amusing.
>
And yours. Yet again: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
>
Not at all, but I'm glad to see how much it irritates and upsets you though.
>>> Despite all this opposition, they were given another opportunity 2 years
>>> later through a series of rolling referendum which failed so badly to
>>> attract any support for devolution in the teeth of opposition
>>> particularly from the London media it was scrapped to a loud hurrah
>>> from the Telegraph.
>>>
>>
>> But the whole thing was flawed from outset. The ONLY area where there
>> was a preference for Regional Assemblies in the NOP 2002 Poll was the
>> extreme South West - which includes Cornwall - where we see 56% in
>> favour, 24% against and 20% "Don't Knows". However, given that the
>> proportion of the population involved was about 3%, it does rather put
>> those figures in perspective.
>
> Ah, so you've been to the Toque site. Rather amusing that that same poll
> also found that 47% of Scots supported an English parliament!
And you're now going on to say:
> The poll, of course, was flawed as there was no option for status quo,
but
> it was carried out for the Compaign for an English Parliament and gave only
> two choices, seperate parliament or 9 devolved assemblies. So, essentially,
> a loaded question to start off with.
>
As were so many. This is why the SNP is so desperate to avoid anything
that uses a straight yes/no basis. The more questions asked the less
clear the outcome.
I've been aware of Toque site for some while but refrained from quoting
any of the statistics therein just to see you creaming your pants with
excitement every time you claimed that the English have had no interest
in a devoluted parliament and quoting "statistics" to "prove" that you
were right.
> So, after all this huff and puff by you, you've merely confirmed everything
> I said.
Don't be so silly. All the way through this thread you've been adamant
that the English weren't interested in the subject of devolution, whilst
throwing in red herrings about "regional devolution" which was wanted by
nobody but Prescott, but claimed by you to be evidence of disinterest.
"Would you like to buy this car, sir? Yes, fine, you'll have to pay the
full price of course, but we can only let you drive for a maximum of 60
miles in any direction."
You were asked, but couldn't be bothered. Now you've woken up, the
> toys are out the pram as you try and pretend you were ignored. Hilarious!
>
I've confirmed nothing that you've said. The Government of the day
totally ignored the wishes of the electorate, thus confirming its
Socialist nature. The last thing they would have wanted is for the
people to have ideas other than those forced upon them. It is only by
virtue of the fact that those OUTSIDE Government sounded out public
opinion that the views of the majority were known - but totally STILL
ignored!
Nonetheless, when UNAMBIGUOUS surveys are undertaken a far clearer
picture emerges. Slipping in questions such as: "Each region of England
to have its own assembly that runs services like health" is less than
honest if the subject is parliamentary devolution, as it is irrelevant
and dilutes the response to the essential questions being asked.
>> However, we have the right to change our minds, however annoying you may
>> find that.
>
> Why should I find that annoying? Do what you like, just stop whinging and
> get on with it.
>
>
Which is being done, of course.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan, Conservative)
The Scottish Government are the most resolute defenders of the Barnett
formula, arguably against the interests of the other nations of the
United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State therefore think that if the
people of Scotland vote yes in a referendum on independence, the Barnett
formula should apply to the nation’s debt?
Michael Moore (Secretary of State, Scotland; Berwickshire, Roxburgh and
Selkirk, Liberal Democrat)
I do not envisage that Scotland will become independent from the United
Kingdom. I think we are stronger together and weaker apart. The hon.
Gentleman touches on the fundamental issue of sorting out what the basis
of that independence might look like, and the Scottish National party
has so far singularly failed to answer questions on that.
> English parliament in 2002-04?
So what? They, as free agents, can approve or oppose whatever they wish.
Go check its back issues. English people
> were ignored(your claim)?
They were by the Government, which is the whole point! The then
Government had their own Scottish biased course to follow and nothing
was going to change that.
You provided the Hansard link yourself to
> show that not only were they consulted through polls,
The Government of the day did NOT consult anyone as any polls were
undertaken by privately sponsored means.
but also through
> their elected representative as well as a rolling referendum that they
> rejected.
Obviously they did. No-one wanted a cheapskate solution which in no way
addressed the provision of an English devolved parliament.
"On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly happy for the
Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on a referendum
held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland not being
allowed a say?"
> when polled? Here's the IPSOS/Mori results between 2001 to 2003
>
> 2001 2002 2003
>
> No change 57 56 55
> Devolved assembies 23 20 24
> Eglish Parliament 16 17 16
>
> And what became apparent from all the polls was that the place where there
> was most apparent enthusiasm for some form of devolution in England was
> the North East and the preferred choice was for regional assemblies. The
> most resistance was in the South East wher 'no change' was the preferred
> option followed by lukewarm support for devolved assembly and even fewer
> for a seperate parliament. yet when the went ahead with the rolling
> referendum, the area which most enthusiastically supported assembly in
> the polls, so comprehensively rejected it, it made the rest of the exercise
> pointless.
>
However, a sample of less than 5% of England's population is hardly
scientific. And, let me say again:
"On that basis you, presumably, would have been perfectly happy for the
Scottish devolution question to have been solved purely on a referendum
held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of Scotland not being
allowed a say?"
>>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>>>> htm#1
>>>>
>>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>>>> htm
>>>>
>>>> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-engli
>>>> sh-parliament-bill
>>>
>>> Thank you for confirming what I said, and demonstarting the hypocrisy of
>>> English people like yourself, by giving links to the 1997/98 bill
>>> proposals before parliament.
>>
>> What is hypocritical about showing factual events?
>>
>> So not only was it discussed amongst the
>>> representatives of the English people in parliament in 1997/98,
>>
>> ..but not exclusively by them. Whilst the the concept of a referendum
>> relating specifically to the formation of an English Parliament was
>> raise and debated it was shunted aside by the then UK Government who,
>> whilst willing to allow such for the Welsh and Scots, were, for reasons
>> of their own, unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the English.
>
> So why were they discussing it in parliament?
>>>> htm#1
>>>>
>>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmbills/009/97009--a.
>>>> htm
>>>>
>>>> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jan/16/referendum-engli
>>>> sh-parliament-bill
>>>
>>> Thank you for confirming what I said, and demonstarting the hypocrisy of
>>> English people like yourself, by giving links to the 1997/98 bill
>>> proposals before parliament.
>>
>> What is hypocritical about showing factual events?
>>
>> So not only was it discussed amongst the
>>> representatives of the English people in parliament in 1997/98,
>>
>> ..but not exclusively by them. Whilst the the concept of a referendum
>> relating specifically to the formation of an English Parliament was
>> raise and debated it was shunted aside by the then UK Government who,
>> whilst willing to allow such for the Welsh and Scots, were, for reasons
>> of their own, unwilling to afford the same courtesy to the English.
>
>
Because, even then, there were aspirations amongst some English MPs for
their constituents to be treated as fairly as those living other than in
England.
>> is probably best explained by the disproportionate number of Scots in
>> the then Cabinet - a cabal of 32%, yet with Scotland, in population
>> terms, representing less than 8.5% of the people of the UK. There was
>> also the cunning move on the Scottish Devolution vote - successfully
>> implemented - by this same cabal to deny disenfranchise those many Scots
>> who have found life to be better for them by choosing to live elsewhere
>> in the United Kingdom.
>
> opportunity.
If you are talking about the "devolution vote" NO OPPORTUNITY was given
to the vast majority of English voters to have their say.
Let me say YET AGAIN: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
perfectly happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
It was all your own doing. No one else made you not go to the
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
> polling booths. No one else made you vote so overwhelmingly to reject the
> whole idea. And no one else made the Telegraph campaign relentlessly
> against the idea back in the day.
>
Silly boy. We were never allowed to get as far as the polling booths on
that subject.
>
>>> people themselves were polled in 2002 in which a vast majority rejected
>>> any change,
>>
>> The ICM poll in 2002 actually shows 48% to be in favour of an English
>> Parliament, 28% in favour of Regional Assemblies and the balance to be
>> "Don't Knows". If you see that as a "vast majority" rejecting any change
>
> poll was the official one.
>
"Official"? So no other poll has any credibility? Come along, please.
>> I feel very sorry for you.
>
>
And yours. Yet again: "On that basis you, presumably, would have been
perfectly happy for the Scottish devolution question to have been solved
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
purely on a referendum held in Aberdeen and Cambuslang with the rest of
Scotland not being allowed a say?"
>> including the Torygraph.
>>>
>>
>> To suggest that the Daily Telegraph is the determining factor in these
>> matters is simply nonsense.
>
> Well, you're passing it as a mouthpiece of English opinion, so why not?
>>>
>>
>> To suggest that the Daily Telegraph is the determining factor in these
>> matters is simply nonsense.
>
>
Not at all, but I'm glad to see how much it irritates and upsets you though.
>>> Despite all this opposition, they were given another opportunity 2 years
>>> later through a series of rolling referendum which failed so badly to
>>> attract any support for devolution in the teeth of opposition
>>> particularly from the London media it was scrapped to a loud hurrah
>>> from the Telegraph.
>>>
>>
>> But the whole thing was flawed from outset. The ONLY area where there
>> was a preference for Regional Assemblies in the NOP 2002 Poll was the
>> extreme South West - which includes Cornwall - where we see 56% in
>> favour, 24% against and 20% "Don't Knows". However, given that the
>> proportion of the population involved was about 3%, it does rather put
>> those figures in perspective.
>
> also found that 47% of Scots supported an English parliament!
And you're now going on to say:
> The poll, of course, was flawed as there was no option for status quo,
but
> it was carried out for the Compaign for an English Parliament and gave only
> two choices, seperate parliament or 9 devolved assemblies. So, essentially,
> a loaded question to start off with.
>
As were so many. This is why the SNP is so desperate to avoid anything
that uses a straight yes/no basis. The more questions asked the less
clear the outcome.
I've been aware of Toque site for some while but refrained from quoting
any of the statistics therein just to see you creaming your pants with
excitement every time you claimed that the English have had no interest
in a devoluted parliament and quoting "statistics" to "prove" that you
were right.
> I said.
Don't be so silly. All the way through this thread you've been adamant
that the English weren't interested in the subject of devolution, whilst
throwing in red herrings about "regional devolution" which was wanted by
nobody but Prescott, but claimed by you to be evidence of disinterest.
"Would you like to buy this car, sir? Yes, fine, you'll have to pay the
full price of course, but we can only let you drive for a maximum of 60
miles in any direction."
You were asked, but couldn't be bothered. Now you've woken up, the
> toys are out the pram as you try and pretend you were ignored. Hilarious!
>
I've confirmed nothing that you've said. The Government of the day
totally ignored the wishes of the electorate, thus confirming its
Socialist nature. The last thing they would have wanted is for the
people to have ideas other than those forced upon them. It is only by
virtue of the fact that those OUTSIDE Government sounded out public
opinion that the views of the majority were known - but totally STILL
ignored!
Nonetheless, when UNAMBIGUOUS surveys are undertaken a far clearer
picture emerges. Slipping in questions such as: "Each region of England
to have its own assembly that runs services like health" is less than
honest if the subject is parliamentary devolution, as it is irrelevant
and dilutes the response to the essential questions being asked.
>> However, we have the right to change our minds, however annoying you may
>> find that.
>
> get on with it.
>
>
Which is being done, of course.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan, Conservative)
The Scottish Government are the most resolute defenders of the Barnett
formula, arguably against the interests of the other nations of the
United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State therefore think that if the
people of Scotland vote yes in a referendum on independence, the Barnett
formula should apply to the nation’s debt?
Michael Moore (Secretary of State, Scotland; Berwickshire, Roxburgh and
Selkirk, Liberal Democrat)
I do not envisage that Scotland will become independent from the United
Kingdom. I think we are stronger together and weaker apart. The hon.
Gentleman touches on the fundamental issue of sorting out what the basis
of that independence might look like, and the Scottish National party
has so far singularly failed to answer questions on that.
Message has been deleted
®i©ardo
Mar 3, 2012, 6:31:17 AM3/3/12
to
> news:Zpmdnam1e9AFsMzS...@giganews.com:
> claimed.
> parliament to 2004 when the first of the rolling referendum began, there
> was 5 years of endless debate on the no change/devolved
> assembly/parliament raging in the media - mainly revolving around the
> cost and the burden of extra bureaucracy it would create. That's not
> being 'ignored' in anyone's book.
But they were NOT consulted on Parliamentary devolution as given away
free with a packet of cornflakes for Wales and Scotland. A market
research survey does not give anyone a vote.
> After 5 years of debate and a poll that showed clear opposition to
> any_ change, when the most popular change option was rolled out to test
> English preferences,
...as "yes - no" would have given a completely different answer. Such a
poll would only have legitimacy if it was worded in exactly the same way
as those conducted in Wales and Scotland - but they never wer..
it comprehensively rejected in favour of 'no
> change' and roundly condemned as a waste of time and money by the English
> public. Thank you.
So, who was allowed a vote in this parliamentary devolution poll?
Perhaps you are confusing a "poll" as in "vote" with a market research
survey.
>
> [rest deleted as flim flam]
So. let’s summarise your stance on the parliamentary devolution issue.
Because there was a Parliamentary Bill, which disappeared into the
ether, relating to an English devolved Parliament, you consider that to
be a consultation of the English electorate and its disappearance a sign
that they rejected the proposal.
You are convinced that England Wales and Scotland have been treated with
equal fairness. This is despite the fact that on the subsequent
devolution exercise only Wales and Scotland were allowed a referendum on
parliamentary devolution whilst the same was expressly denied to the
people of England, and that denial by the then Government you take as a
sign that the English people rejected a referendum on the subject.
You consider that the cynical devolution exercise conducted by the then
UK Government relating to English regional assemblies, and covering less
than 5% of England’s population, and then abandoned thus
disenfranchising over 95% of England’s population to be of equal value
and significance to a national poll as enjoyed by Wales and Scotland. A
quick reminder here, before you move into red herring mode: England was
never offered Parliamentary devolution - that was only offered to Wales
and Scotland.
Despite the fact that with monotonous frequency many market research
projects over a long period indicated substantial English enthusiasm for
a devolved English Parliament, because one or two such research projects
claim to have shown a contrary view this means that the whole of the
English electorate have, in your opinion, been consulted, and the one or
two negative ones take precedence over the majority.
Despite the fact that no-one in England has ever been offered or allowed
a vote on parliamentary devolution you still consider that the English
voters have, somehow disenfranchised themselves on a subject that
they’ve never been allowed to vote on. You also feel that their
treatment has been equal to that allowed the people of Wales and
Scotland who were granted a referendum on that same subject.
Because the Daily Telegraph campaigned against parliamentary devolution
for England, their proposals should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I'd rather not be drinking what you're drinking!
>
>>>>> Reduced to petty non sequiturs now in the face of irrefutable
>>>>> facts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are not "irrefutable facts" they are merely your personal
>>>> opinions.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, they are easily checkable facts. Torygraph opposed
>>> an English parliament in 2002-04?
>>
>> So what? They, as free agents, can approve or oppose whatever they
>> wish.
>
> So, it's an irrefutable fact as I said, and not 'personal opinion' as you
>>>>> Reduced to petty non sequiturs now in the face of irrefutable
>>>>> facts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are not "irrefutable facts" they are merely your personal
>>>> opinions.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, they are easily checkable facts. Torygraph opposed
>>> an English parliament in 2002-04?
>>
>> So what? They, as free agents, can approve or oppose whatever they
>> wish.
>
> claimed.
>
>> Go check its back issues. English people
>>> were ignored(your claim)?
>>
>> They were by the Government, which is the whole point!
>
> They weren't. That's the point. From 1999 when it was first raised in
>> Go check its back issues. English people
>>> were ignored(your claim)?
>>
>> They were by the Government, which is the whole point!
>
> parliament to 2004 when the first of the rolling referendum began, there
> was 5 years of endless debate on the no change/devolved
> assembly/parliament raging in the media - mainly revolving around the
> cost and the burden of extra bureaucracy it would create. That's not
> being 'ignored' in anyone's book.
>
>> The then
>> Government had their own Scottish biased course to follow and nothing
>> was going to change that.
>
> So John Prescott was following a Scottish agenda conspiracy? Dearie me!
>> The then
>> Government had their own Scottish biased course to follow and nothing
>> was going to change that.
>
>
>> You provided the Hansard link yourself to
>>> show that not only were they consulted through polls,
>>
>> The Government of the day did NOT consult anyone as any polls were
>> undertaken by privately sponsored means.
>
> The IPSOS/MORI poll I quoted from was sponsored by the government.
>> You provided the Hansard link yourself to
>>> show that not only were they consulted through polls,
>>
>> The Government of the day did NOT consult anyone as any polls were
>> undertaken by privately sponsored means.
>
>
>> but also through
>>> their elected representative as well as a rolling referendum that
>>> they rejected.
>>
>> Obviously they did. No-one wanted a cheapskate solution which in no
>> way addressed the provision of an English devolved parliament.
>
> Ah. So finally you concede they were consulted, but weren't interested.
>> but also through
>>> their elected representative as well as a rolling referendum that
>>> they rejected.
>>
>> Obviously they did. No-one wanted a cheapskate solution which in no
>> way addressed the provision of an English devolved parliament.
>
But they were NOT consulted on Parliamentary devolution as given away
free with a packet of cornflakes for Wales and Scotland. A market
research survey does not give anyone a vote.
> After 5 years of debate and a poll that showed clear opposition to
> any_ change, when the most popular change option was rolled out to test
> English preferences,
...as "yes - no" would have given a completely different answer. Such a
poll would only have legitimacy if it was worded in exactly the same way
as those conducted in Wales and Scotland - but they never wer..
it comprehensively rejected in favour of 'no
> change' and roundly condemned as a waste of time and money by the English
> public. Thank you.
So, who was allowed a vote in this parliamentary devolution poll?
Perhaps you are confusing a "poll" as in "vote" with a market research
survey.
>
> [rest deleted as flim flam]
So. let’s summarise your stance on the parliamentary devolution issue.
Because there was a Parliamentary Bill, which disappeared into the
ether, relating to an English devolved Parliament, you consider that to
be a consultation of the English electorate and its disappearance a sign
that they rejected the proposal.
You are convinced that England Wales and Scotland have been treated with
equal fairness. This is despite the fact that on the subsequent
devolution exercise only Wales and Scotland were allowed a referendum on
parliamentary devolution whilst the same was expressly denied to the
people of England, and that denial by the then Government you take as a
sign that the English people rejected a referendum on the subject.
You consider that the cynical devolution exercise conducted by the then
UK Government relating to English regional assemblies, and covering less
than 5% of England’s population, and then abandoned thus
disenfranchising over 95% of England’s population to be of equal value
and significance to a national poll as enjoyed by Wales and Scotland. A
quick reminder here, before you move into red herring mode: England was
never offered Parliamentary devolution - that was only offered to Wales
and Scotland.
Despite the fact that with monotonous frequency many market research
projects over a long period indicated substantial English enthusiasm for
a devolved English Parliament, because one or two such research projects
claim to have shown a contrary view this means that the whole of the
English electorate have, in your opinion, been consulted, and the one or
two negative ones take precedence over the majority.
Despite the fact that no-one in England has ever been offered or allowed
a vote on parliamentary devolution you still consider that the English
voters have, somehow disenfranchised themselves on a subject that
they’ve never been allowed to vote on. You also feel that their
treatment has been equal to that allowed the people of Wales and
Scotland who were granted a referendum on that same subject.
Because the Daily Telegraph campaigned against parliamentary devolution
for England, their proposals should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I'd rather not be drinking what you're drinking!
0 new messages