Marc Living - A true Englishman!
Kingsley Matthews
city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
comments.
1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
led by Edward Heath.
3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
masters, the English.
4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
profits.
6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
such a good idea.
8. erm ... that's it.
--
Kingsley
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
The bitter irony is that many English Eurosceptics cannot see the parallels
between the EU and the U.K.. Smaller country swallowed by larger company
losing currency, law, sovereignty etc. Sounds familiar to Scots (whose law
is not equal to English as a recent case shwoed) and Welsh. I am a
Eurosceptic, not because I am anti-European (I wish people would stop using
Europe to mean just EU, Norway and Russia are in Europe), but because as I
have said before the EU is simply a means for the "fat cats to grow more
obese". Government by the multinationals, of the multinationals for the
multinationals.
>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>led by Edward Heath.
I'm sure the English would not be grateful if they were ruled from
Edinburgh/Cardiff, and had a foreign language imposed on them.
>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>masters, the English.
And of course the British empire was really nice to those "darkies"
>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>
>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>profits.
>
>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
Wales having a currency with Bank of England written on it is good. Scotland
having a currency, which is hard to use outside it is good.
kjc
Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> stating:
>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
I would agree with this...
>
>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>led by Edward Heath.
Um....only Heath?
>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>masters, the English.
Sheesh....what an oversimplificaton!! I am sure Marc, like many, have
more reservations based on sound economic as well as political
reasons.
>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
undemocratic.
>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>profits.
Most things are better run privately (not everything though).
A Monopolies and Mergers Commission 'with teeth' wouldn't go a miss.
>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
Prove that it won't be.
>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>such a good idea.
A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
>8. erm ... that's it.
Chow......
kjc
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
touched.
>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>comments.
Righto. (This is a bit like "What's my Line". I look forward to seeing
how wide of the mark some of the guesses are.)
>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
Nope.
I agree with the "not from Brussels", and believe that devolution
*as*implemented* destabilises the UK.
My preferred solution to the overcentralisation of the UK (and I agree
that it is grossly overcentralised) would be to restore to LAs the
powers they enjoyed at the turn of the century.
>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>led by Edward Heath.
LOL.
Surprisingly enough I have been pretty relaxed about this Government
in general: although less relaxed about some of their policies.
As for the Scots and Welsh, I still haven't received any answer as to
why they believe that they have a greater right than I do to complain
about a Government elected with a majority in the UK.
My whole point is simple. If Scotland and Wales wish to remain part of
the UK, then they must put up, with as good grace as they can muster,
with the policies of the duly elected Government of the UK.
If, they wish to sort out their own policies, then they should do so,
by leaving the UK.
I believe that Salmond made a similar point in his speech to the SNP
conference - and I don't suppose that you would call me a true SNPman.
>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>masters, the English.
If Scotland is indeed the "slave" you appear to believe it to be, then
it is a slave who has a key to the front door, and the right to use
it, but nevertheless refuses to leave.
Salmond's analogy of the complaining lodger was rather closer to the
mark (and it surprised me enormously to find myself agreeing with
him).
>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic.
40 million votes overriding 6 and a half million votes *is*
democratic. I should be very interested to hear a definition of
"democracy" which says otherwise.
>Joining
>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
If a small number of people have the same say as a large number of
people then that is *not* democratic. It may be a better system, or
indeed fairer - but not "democratic".
Not that "an equal say" *is* in fact what happens in the EU.
>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>profits.
Nope. Totally wide of the mark here.
>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
Rather an inopportune time to mention *this* isn't it? Given Eddie
George's "gaffe" the other day. If members of your party are up in
arms when the natural consequences of a UK single currency are pointed
out to them, how much more annoyed are they going to be wrt an EU
single currency?
>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea,
It was? Their assistance in the destruction of Local Government (Heath
and Thatcher) didn't happen then? Even if some Tory once may have
floated such an idea, actions speak louder than words.
>but when put into practice, i.e.
>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>such a good idea.
The centralisation of the UK ought to have been reversed by giving
power (both to raise revenue, and set policy) back to the bodies which
lost them - not by creating a couple of centrally financed (or largely
centrally financed) gasworks for a small minority of Britain's
citizens.
>8. erm ... that's it.
Oh dear. I thought you were just getting going.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Bill Willis
Marc Living wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
> <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
> My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
> touched.
Congrats Marc, you have indeed arrived.
Bill
Gareth Jones
>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>led by Edward Heath.
>
>
>I'm sure the English would not be grateful if they were ruled from
>Edinburgh/Cardiff, and had a foreign language imposed on them.
What I always find a bit weird about the devolution debate is that the
scots and welsh all seem to think that the english want to rule over
them. Most english people I know (and despite the name, I am english
rather than welsh) couldn't give two hoots about the union, and would
cut the welsh and scots loose at the first available opportunity....
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
more democratic than the EU.
Gareth Jones
James C. Woodard
Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>comments.
1. He's a Nationalist(Welsh)
2. He's a socialist(member of both the Labour Party and the Fabian Society)
3. What was the name of the Adolph fellow's party that came to power in
Germany in the 1930s? National Socialist, do I hear you say.
4. What does this make Kingsley.
Jim
Paul Floyd
kjc <k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[chomp]
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>undemocratic.
Err, how can any law passed by a democratically elected government be
undemocratic? I hear Blair is a bit tyrannical with his 'must always be
on-message' stuff, but as far as I'm aware, he hasn't yet declared a
dictatorship. Back at the last election, there was the Referendum party lead
by Sir Jimmy Fishpaste (RIP). They didn't win, did they? And their party has
even been wound up.
[chomp]
>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>such a good idea.
>A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
I'd prefer it to be more on the lines of the USA or Switzerland (la
Confederation Helvetique), made up of different cantons.
Salut
Paul
>kjc
--
Dr. Paul Floyd, Department of Electrical Engineering (sort of)
University of Manchester, UK "@afs.mcc..." not meehpc.ee.man
algoss
(kjc) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, an opinion was expressed by
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> stating:
>
>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>I would agree with this...
Do you mean you agree that is what he believes or do you
agree with those alleged beliefs
>>
>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>led by Edward Heath.
>Um....only Heath?
Why stick at conservative governments.
>
>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>masters, the English.
>Sheesh....what an oversimplificaton!! I am sure Marc, like many, have
>more reservations based on sound economic as well as political
>reasons.
Well some people may follow a particular political ideaology
but using 'economics' to foretell the future is on a par
with examining the entrails of dead chickens.
>
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>undemocratic.
I've never figured out what system we use but it isn't
democracy.
>
>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>profits.
>Most things are better run privately (not everything though).
>A Monopolies and Mergers Commission 'with teeth' wouldn't go a miss.
>
>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>Prove that it won't be.
If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
goods and services , Bad.
>
>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>such a good idea.
>A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
I can get my hands round the local councillers throat if
things got really out of hand. The local MP has an armed
guard and Westminster is off limits to the peasantry.
>
>>8. erm ... that's it.
>
>Chow......
>
>
>kjc
We'll all be dead in 2098 anyway.
Alan Goss
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>comments.
>
>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>
He wishes to preserve the Union as he believes it is of benefit to the
majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
and everywhere.
The Conservatives offered a voice to the "no" campaign and we were
right to do so, now the votes have been cast and the results made
known we accept the decisions and work around them.
Had the Welsh "no" vote had sufficient funding then the "yes" vote
would never have got through.
I believe that if you have a Union where one partner is willing and
the other is not then it is time to say adios.
>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>led by Edward Heath.
Not so, there is nothing of the Nanny approach from the Tories. It is
your beloved New labour that has the Nanny approach.
>
>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>masters, the English.
No, it is the loss of sovereignty that is a concern. I think that in
the whole the EU is not THAT good to us, although it is beneficial to
be a member for trading reasons. The problem is the downside is
starting to outweigh the upside. Excessive regulation and dabbling in
our domestic affairs are starting to annoy people.
>
>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
The Scots and the Welsh have a disproportionate say in Westminster,
the current system is undemocratic. Scots/Welsh constituencies bya nd
large have 20,000 fewer voters than English ones. If anything our
politics is unduly influenced from Scotland and Wales.
>
>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>profits.
Yes, privatisation is a good thing, profit is, of course, a motive,
but then are you saying these companies did not make a profit prior to
privatisation ?
>
>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
That is too simplistic, it is the inherent loss of control over the
economy that goes with it that is of concern.
>
>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>such a good idea.
>
>8. erm ... that's it.
I say my dear fellow, how spiffing to see you back here. I thought you
had left this group as it is a right wing cabal. Excellent to see your
thoughtful insight back.
--------
Somebody Call my Momma, I'm fixen to hurt somebody"
Kingsley Matthews
<gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
><jkw...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>>led by Edward Heath.
>>
>>
>>Edinburgh/Cardiff, and had a foreign language imposed on them.
>
>What I always find a bit weird about the devolution debate is that the
>scots and welsh all seem to think that the english want to rule over
>them. Most english people I know (and despite the name, I am english
>rather than welsh) couldn't give two hoots about the union, and would
>cut the welsh and scots loose at the first available opportunity....
>
years and found no evidence fo the English wanting to cut the Scots and
Welsh loose.
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>
>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>more democratic than the EU.
>
Utter Bollocks!
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, an opinion was expressed by
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> stating:
>
>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>
>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>led by Edward Heath.
>Um....only Heath?
>
>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>masters, the English.
>Sheesh....what an oversimplificaton!! I am sure Marc, like many, have
>more reservations based on sound economic as well as political
>reasons.
>
He has provided plenty of economic and political reasons, but none of
them sound.
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>undemocratic.
>
>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>profits.
>Most things are better run privately (not everything though).
>A Monopolies and Mergers Commission 'with teeth' wouldn't go a miss.
>
Oh yes???
>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>Prove that it won't be.
>
You prove that it will be. A currency is a currency, as long as shops
etc accept it, it will serve its purpose.
>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>such a good idea.
>A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
>
That is something out of your imagination. However, many MPs were once
councillors, are they all bad, or would you rather be run by people who
were unelected?
>>8. erm ... that's it.
>
>Chow......
>
What has a breed of dog got to do with it?
>
>kjc
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>touched.
>
deserved the honour for writing reams and keeping me awake until long
past my natural bedtime :-)
>>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>>comments.
>
>Righto. (This is a bit like "What's my Line". I look forward to seeing
>how wide of the mark some of the guesses are.)
>
>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>
>Nope.
>
But you once argured long and hard with me that the Welsh and English
were really the same people.
>I agree with the "not from Brussels", and believe that devolution
>*as*implemented* destabilises the UK.
>
Devolution 'as implemented' will probably not last very long, see the
recent history of Catalonia. There will be changes made as soon as the
two elected bodies meet, Ron Davies said it was the beginning not the
end of a process, and the process will continue until we get it
approximately right.
>My preferred solution to the overcentralisation of the UK (and I agree
>that it is grossly overcentralised) would be to restore to LAs the
>powers they enjoyed at the turn of the century.
>
If you had made that feeling more explicit earlier we might have found
ourselves in greater agreement.
>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>led by Edward Heath.
>
>LOL.
>
>Surprisingly enough I have been pretty relaxed about this Government
>in general: although less relaxed about some of their policies.
>
I find that statement to be contradictory.
>As for the Scots and Welsh, I still haven't received any answer as to
>why they believe that they have a greater right than I do to complain
>about a Government elected with a majority in the UK.
>
This Weslhman, resident in Scotland (I've been here long enough to play
for them), believes you have as great a right to complain as any of us.
I have never met any Welshperson or Scot who believes otherwise.
>My whole point is simple. If Scotland and Wales wish to remain part of
>the UK, then they must put up, with as good grace as they can muster,
>with the policies of the duly elected Government of the UK.
>
We do, but we still occasionally whinge.
>If, they wish to sort out their own policies, then they should do so,
>by leaving the UK.
>
>I believe that Salmond made a similar point in his speech to the SNP
>conference - and I don't suppose that you would call me a true SNPman.
>
That is an ongoing debate that has yet to be resolved. I can only state
my own feelings, many of my fellow nationals have different opinions,
please don't lump us all in the same basket, or I will accuse all the
English of supporting New Labour.
>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>masters, the English.
>
>If Scotland is indeed the "slave" you appear to believe it to be, then
>it is a slave who has a key to the front door, and the right to use
>it, but nevertheless refuses to leave.
>
>Salmond's analogy of the complaining lodger was rather closer to the
>mark (and it surprised me enormously to find myself agreeing with
>him).
>
Interesting comments but nothing at all to do with my original
statement.
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic.
>
>40 million votes overriding 6 and a half million votes *is*
>democratic. I should be very interested to hear a definition of
>"democracy" which says otherwise.
>
But they still dominate, fairly or not. Those of on the side of those
6.5 million votes have absolutely no chance of making any changes. That
was a similar problem in Northern Ireland, the majority continued to
vote to dispossess the minority who were failed by the democratic
process that had been imposed on them. Scots and Welsh have been
similarly failed, something devolution will help to redress.
>>Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>
>If a small number of people have the same say as a large number of
>people then that is *not* democratic. It may be a better system, or
>indeed fairer - but not "democratic".
>
I didn't once say that the EU is democratic, but I am confident they
become so in time. However safeguards must be put in place in order to
protects the regions, let us hope that those who eventually draw up a
European constitution will have learnt the lessons of history. I
believe they have, which is why progress is so slow.
>Not that "an equal say" *is* in fact what happens in the EU.
>
It is a lot more equal than that which happens in the UK.
>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>profits.
>
>Nope. Totally wide of the mark here.
>
The I apologise, and feel free to snip that part of this thread.
>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>
>Rather an inopportune time to mention *this* isn't it? Given Eddie
>George's "gaffe" the other day. If members of your party are up in
>arms when the natural consequences of a UK single currency are pointed
>out to them, how much more annoyed are they going to be wrt an EU
>single currency?
>
Someone else has already said that a currency is good if it buys goods
and services, if it doesn't, it is bad. There is nothing special about
sterling.
>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea,
>
>It was? Their assistance in the destruction of Local Government (Heath
>and Thatcher) didn't happen then? Even if some Tory once may have
>floated such an idea, actions speak louder than words.
>
I think that it was you who said it, I won't trawl through dejanews for
proof, but if I'm wrong, another apology.
>>but when put into practice, i.e.
>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>such a good idea.
>
>The centralisation of the UK ought to have been reversed by giving
>power (both to raise revenue, and set policy) back to the bodies which
>lost them - not by creating a couple of centrally financed (or largely
>centrally financed) gasworks for a small minority of Britain's
>citizens.
>
Wow!!! Another point of agreement, we're getting there, I just need you
to concede the rest of the points and there is hope :-)
>>8. erm ... that's it.
>
>Oh dear. I thought you were just getting going.
>
I was, but my wife shouted through that there was something on telly
that I wanted to watch.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3639f2e5...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co
>.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>
>>My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>>touched.
>
>
>Pity that the initial article seems to be almost entirely the fictional
>ravings of someone from another planet entirely.
>
Answer me properly, don't evade the issue. Coward.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>
>Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>>comments.
>
>1. He's a Nationalist(Welsh)
I am not and never have been.
>2. He's a socialist(member of both the Labour Party and the Fabian Society)
Yes I am both. Although my subscription to the Fabian Society and I
don't think I will be renewing it.
>3. What was the name of the Adolph fellow's party that came to power in
>Germany in the 1930s? National Socialist, do I hear you say.
Adolf's party (why don't you learn to spell?), may have been National,
it was never Socialist, despite what they called themselves. A tip,
Jim, in politics, sometimes things are not what they seem.
>4. What does this make Kingsley.
I don't think it makes Kingsley anything, however, seeing that two out
of the three comments are wrong, it says an awful lot about Jim!
--
Kingsley
Paul Floyd
Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36360706...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gareth Jones
><gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
>>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>>more democratic than the EU.
>>
>Utter Bollocks!
Well, it depends which bit you are talking about. The Brussels Bureaucrats
have a lot of power and were not democratically elected (though they do get
selected my the member states). The Council of Ministers, which has the real
power, is only elected via the member states elections. Then there is the
European Parliament. This is the most democratic of all. But sadly, it is a
pathetic joke as far as power is concerned. It seems to me most MEPs spend
their time racking up expenses in restaurants. On the rare occasions that
the Parliament is quorate (yes, there's a quorum), they only have powers to
pass euro-banana type laws.
Personally I'd rather see Brussels far more accountable, and the European
parliament either scrapped or made less of a waste of time.
Salut
Paul
>Kingsley
MH Roberts
) Had the Welsh "no" vote had sufficient funding then the "yes" vote
) would never have got through.
Soundbite alert!!! How do you 'know' this exactly?
Mel Roberts.
--
Remove "NOSPAM." to mail me.
Gareth Jones
>>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>>more democratic than the EU.
>>
>Utter Bollocks!
Can you seriously contest this? Pretty much everyone acknowledges the
lack of accountability in Europe (the fact that the Commission is
unelected for example). The UK's democracy is far from perfect (or
even adequate to my mind), but the EUs is much worse.
Gareth
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>What I always find a bit weird about the devolution debate is that the
>>scots and welsh all seem to think that the english want to rule over
>>them. Most english people I know (and despite the name, I am english
>>rather than welsh) couldn't give two hoots about the union, and would
>>cut the welsh and scots loose at the first available opportunity....
>Then why are they so keen to keep the union?
For no other reason than because it is there mostly. It isn't really
something which is thought about much.
>I lived in England for 14
>years and found no evidence fo the English wanting to cut the Scots and
>Welsh loose.
It isn't a question of *wanting* to cut them loose. It is a question
of not really minding one way or the other.
Marc Living
(algoss) made the following submissions:
>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>Prove that it won't be.
>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>goods and services , Bad.
And if the price of maintaining the value of a currency that you can
spend is unemployment in the North East?
Marc Living
<wwi...@bcpl.lib.md.us> made the following submissions:
>Marc Living wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>> <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>> My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>> touched.
>Congrats Marc, you have indeed arrived.
Do I get a certificate?
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <3639f2e5...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.B
>OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>>touched.
>I've had several of my own, but none lasted long, I just thought you
>deserved the honour for writing reams and keeping me awake until long
>past my natural bedtime :-)
See you in the divorce courts:-)
(Does *your* wife assume that the only reason you spend so much time
"on the Internet" is because you are chatting up women?)
<snip>
>>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>Nope.
>But you once argured long and hard with me that the Welsh and English
>were really the same people.
I think that I argued that they were two parts of the same *country* -
which, legally, they are - in a way that England and Scotland
*aren't*.
>>I agree with the "not from Brussels", and believe that devolution
>>*as*implemented* destabilises the UK.
>Devolution 'as implemented' will probably not last very long, see the
>recent history of Catalonia. There will be changes made as soon as the
>two elected bodies meet, Ron Davies said it was the beginning not the
>end of a process, and the process will continue until we get it
>approximately right.
Hmmm. We'll see. And I don't see how "fine tuning" of the respective
gasworks will change matters. The destabilisation arises from the fact
that the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island will be
governed on a different basis to (what will be seen as) a privileged
minority.
>>My preferred solution to the overcentralisation of the UK (and I agree
>>that it is grossly overcentralised) would be to restore to LAs the
>>powers they enjoyed at the turn of the century.
>If you had made that feeling more explicit earlier we might have found
>ourselves in greater agreement.
Better late than never.
>>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>>led by Edward Heath.
>>LOL.
>>Surprisingly enough I have been pretty relaxed about this Government
>>in general: although less relaxed about some of their policies.
>I find that statement to be contradictory.
I don't see why. That I am relaxed in general, does not mean that I am
relaxed about *all* their policies. My primary concern is the ...
carelessness which it seems to have for people's rights: particularly
those of alleged criminals.
Although I do have to say that the general "we know better than you"
and "we are the best thing since sliced bread" tone is beginning to
jar quite a lot.
OTOH, the sight of Paddy Ashdown sucking up to a government which
*everybody* knows is going to let him down is some compensation.
>>As for the Scots and Welsh, I still haven't received any answer as to
>>why they believe that they have a greater right than I do to complain
>>about a Government elected with a majority in the UK.
>This Weslhman, resident in Scotland (I've been here long enough to play
>for them), believes you have as great a right to complain as any of us.
>I have never met any Welshperson or Scot who believes otherwise.
And yet if I were to talk about how "undemocratic" it is that 50 odd
million people together have more say in the governance of the country
than I do, I would be led away to the funny farm - not given my very
own assembly.
>>My whole point is simple. If Scotland and Wales wish to remain part of
>>the UK, then they must put up, with as good grace as they can muster,
>>with the policies of the duly elected Government of the UK.
>We do, but we still occasionally whinge.
And complain about "English domination".
>>If, they wish to sort out their own policies, then they should do so,
>>by leaving the UK.
>>I believe that Salmond made a similar point in his speech to the SNP
>>conference - and I don't suppose that you would call me a true SNPman.
>That is an ongoing debate that has yet to be resolved. I can only state
>my own feelings, many of my fellow nationals have different opinions,
>please don't lump us all in the same basket, or I will accuse all the
>English of supporting New Labour.
Fair enough.
>>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>>masters, the English.
>>If Scotland is indeed the "slave" you appear to believe it to be, then
>>it is a slave who has a key to the front door, and the right to use
>>it, but nevertheless refuses to leave.
>>Salmond's analogy of the complaining lodger was rather closer to the
>>mark (and it surprised me enormously to find myself agreeing with
>>him).
>Interesting comments but nothing at all to do with my original
>statement.
You talked of "natural masters". What did you mean by it?
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic.
>>40 million votes overriding 6 and a half million votes *is*
>>democratic. I should be very interested to hear a definition of
>>"democracy" which says otherwise.
>But they still dominate, fairly or not.
You said that it was not democratic. Do you now agree that it *is*
democratic - whilst maintaining that it is nevertheless not fair?
> Those of on the side of those
>6.5 million votes have absolutely no chance of making any changes.
They have as much chance as any group of 6.5 million people in
England. How much more of a chance *should* they have?
>That
>was a similar problem in Northern Ireland, the majority continued to
>vote to dispossess the minority who were failed by the democratic
>process that had been imposed on them.
Indeed. That is an argument against democracy. Do you agree therefore
that democracy is not fair?
>Scots and Welsh have been
>similarly failed, something devolution will help to redress.
If by "similarly failed" you mean that the Scots and Welsh have been
treated in the way that Stormont treated the nationalists, then I
would vehemently disagree.
If, OTOH you simply mean that 6.5 million Scots and Welsh people
should, for some reason, have more say in the government of the UK
than an equivalent number of Englishmen, then I would be very
interested to hear how you justify such a contention.
>>>Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>If a small number of people have the same say as a large number of
>>people then that is *not* democratic. It may be a better system, or
>>indeed fairer - but not "democratic".
>I didn't once say that the EU is democratic, but I am confident they
>become so in time.
If the EU becomes democratic, then Scotland's 6 million would have
even less say in the EU, than it currently does in the UK - for the
simple reason that it would be an even smaller minority in the EU than
it is in the UK.
>However safeguards must be put in place in order to
>protects the regions,
Do you want it to be democratic or not?
>let us hope that those who eventually draw up a
>European constitution will have learnt the lessons of history. I
>believe they have, which is why progress is so slow.
Hmmm.
>>Not that "an equal say" *is* in fact what happens in the EU.
>It is a lot more equal than that which happens in the UK.
More equal per *state* perhaps (although even that is debatable).
Certainly not more equal per *person*.
>>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>>profits.
>>Nope. Totally wide of the mark here.
>The I apologise, and feel free to snip that part of this thread.
No need to apologise. I will happily discuss the virtues of private
over public property with you in another thread if you prefer. My
denial was based on the fact that the virtues of private property do
not depend on the owners having altruistic motives.
>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>Rather an inopportune time to mention *this* isn't it? Given Eddie
>>George's "gaffe" the other day. If members of your party are up in
>>arms when the natural consequences of a UK single currency are pointed
>>out to them, how much more annoyed are they going to be wrt an EU
>>single currency?
>Someone else has already said that a currency is good if it buys goods
>and services, if it doesn't, it is bad. There is nothing special about
>sterling.
And do you believe that unemployment in the North East is a price
worth paying to maintain the value of a currency which buys goods and
services?
>>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea,
>>It was? Their assistance in the destruction of Local Government (Heath
>>and Thatcher) didn't happen then? Even if some Tory once may have
>>floated such an idea, actions speak louder than words.
>I think that it was you who said it, I won't trawl through dejanews for
>proof, but if I'm wrong, another apology.
I certainly don't remember saying any such thing. I have seen it said
that Heath was in favour of it - but then he loved reorganising local
government so I dread to think what he might have meant by it.
>>>but when put into practice, i.e.
>>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>>such a good idea.
>>The centralisation of the UK ought to have been reversed by giving
>>power (both to raise revenue, and set policy) back to the bodies which
>>lost them - not by creating a couple of centrally financed (or largely
>>centrally financed) gasworks for a small minority of Britain's
>>citizens.
>Wow!!! Another point of agreement, we're getting there, I just need you
>to concede the rest of the points and there is hope :-)
Don't hold your breath:-)
Kingsley Matthews
<mbh...@meehpc.ee.man.ac.uk> writes
>In article <vVO5OCAX...@kandam.demon.co.uk>,
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <36360706...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gareth Jones
>><gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>>more democratic than the EU.
>>>
>>Utter Bollocks!
>
>have a lot of power and were not democratically elected (though they do get
>selected my the member states). The Council of Ministers, which has the real
>power, is only elected via the member states elections. Then there is the
>European Parliament. This is the most democratic of all. But sadly, it is a
>pathetic joke as far as power is concerned. It seems to me most MEPs spend
>their time racking up expenses in restaurants. On the rare occasions that
>the Parliament is quorate (yes, there's a quorum), they only have powers to
>pass euro-banana type laws.
>
>Personally I'd rather see Brussels far more accountable, and the European
>parliament either scrapped or made less of a waste of time.
>
How would you like to see the rest accountable?
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>>>more democratic than the EU.
>>>
>>Utter Bollocks!
>
>lack of accountability in Europe (the fact that the Commission is
>unelected for example). The UK's democracy is far from perfect (or
>even adequate to my mind), but the EUs is much worse.
>
parliaments, all of whom are democratically elected. It would be nice
to see them more democratically representative, but to say that they are
undemocratic is, I repeat, bollocks!
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:54:23 GMT, m'learned friend arf...@hotmail.com
>(algoss) made the following submissions:
>
>
>>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>>goods and services , Bad.
>
>And if the price of maintaining the value of a currency that you can
>spend is unemployment in the North East?
>
>
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<r...@bluenoze.demon.co.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote as thus on
>uk.politics.misc :
>
>>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>>comments.
>>
>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>
>
>majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
>and everywhere.
>
European Union, we have more in common than we have differences, it is
the English who want to dominate, you won't dominate in Europe.
>The Conservatives offered a voice to the "no" campaign and we were
>right to do so, now the votes have been cast and the results made
>known we accept the decisions and work around them.
>
Big of you.
>Had the Welsh "no" vote had sufficient funding then the "yes" vote
>would never have got through.
>
So, it doesn't count because of the funding, but all the times the
tories won elections when they outspent all other parties, that counts.
Don't patronise us.
>I believe that if you have a Union where one partner is willing and
>the other is not then it is time to say adios.
>
That has not yet happened, no matter how you and I might wish it so.
>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>led by Edward Heath.
>
>Not so, there is nothing of the Nanny approach from the Tories. It is
>your beloved New labour that has the Nanny approach.
>
In your dreams!
>>
>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>masters, the English.
>
>No, it is the loss of sovereignty that is a concern.
The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
so amused at your bleating.
>I think that in
>the whole the EU is not THAT good to us, although it is beneficial to
>be a member for trading reasons. The problem is the downside is
>starting to outweigh the upside. Excessive regulation and dabbling in
>our domestic affairs are starting to annoy people.
>
You want the benefits, but not the responsibilities. How English of
you!
>>
>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>
>The Scots and the Welsh have a disproportionate say in Westminster,
>the current system is undemocratic. Scots/Welsh constituencies bya nd
>large have 20,000 fewer voters than English ones. If anything our
>politics is unduly influenced from Scotland and Wales.
>
But we still have no influence in spite of your cosmetic gerrymandering.
>>
>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>profits.
>
>Yes, privatisation is a good thing, profit is, of course, a motive,
>but then are you saying these companies did not make a profit prior to
>privatisation ?
>
Privatisation panders to greed, I don't happen to believe greed is a
decent motive for government. If you do, then I think your values are
those of the sewer.
>>
>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>
>That is too simplistic, it is the inherent loss of control over the
>economy that goes with it that is of concern.
>
We had no control over the pound. International speculators (gamblers)
controlled it. They will have less control over the Euro - that is
good.
>>
>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>such a good idea.
>>
>>8. erm ... that's it.
>
>I say my dear fellow, how spiffing to see you back here. I thought you
>had left this group as it is a right wing cabal. Excellent to see your
>thoughtful insight back.
>
Just a bit of cross-posting, if I hadn't, Marc might not have seen it,
and that would not have been right. I still think your group is a
right-wing cabal (your words).
--
Kingsley
kjc
mbh...@meehpc.ee.man.ac.uk (Paul Floyd) stating:
>In article <3631e9c9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>kjc <k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[chomp]
>
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>>undemocratic.
>
>Err, how can any law passed by a democratically elected government be
>undemocratic?
On very important issues, such as these, a referendum should be
conducted. Especially where it is blatantly obvious that the
country/electorate and political parties appear to be seriously split
on the issue.
>>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>>such a good idea.
>>A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
>
>I'd prefer it to be more on the lines of the USA or Switzerland (la
>Confederation Helvetique), made up of different cantons.
I wouldn't.
kjc
kjc
arf...@hotmail.com (algoss) stating:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:06:05 GMT, k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk
>(kjc) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, an opinion was expressed by
>>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> stating:
>>
>>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>I would agree with this...
>Do you mean you agree that is what he believes or do you
>agree with those alleged beliefs
Dunno...but i would much prefer rule from Westminster than Brussels
if that's any help?
>>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>>led by Edward Heath.
>>Um....only Heath?
>Why stick at conservative governments.
Beacause other parties threaten the United bit of the Kingdom?
>>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>>masters, the English.
>>Sheesh....what an oversimplificaton!! I am sure Marc, like many, have
>>more reservations based on sound economic as well as political
>>reasons.
>Well some people may follow a particular political ideaology
>but using 'economics' to foretell the future
But it appears you 'euro addicts' are clearly able to foretell the
future as you are obviously trying a 'hard sell' on the populous
as to the great financial future we will have in the land of 'milk and
honey'.
If you want us to convert please quantify the likely economic effects
of full blown EU membership.
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>>undemocratic.
>I've never figured out what system we use but it isn't
>democracy.
Were we not promissed a referendum?
>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>Prove that it won't be.
>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>goods and services , Bad.
What will be the effects of the euro on monetary policy?
>>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>>such a good idea.
>>A nation run by councillors.....yuk!
>I can get my hands round the local councillers throat if
>things got really out of hand.
I bet you will get a answering machine!
> The local MP has an armed
>guard and Westminster is off limits to the peasantry.
Try an MP's surgery!
kjc
Dave Thomas
>
>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>I would agree with this...
>
>
>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>undemocratic.
Erm..is it any more or less undemocratic than joining Wales to England
without a referendum?
How do you get a Union from the joining of unequals? Would it be a
democratic system if say the state of Texas had more representatives in
the senate that the rest of the states put together?
Forced allegiances and conquered territories scarcely make for a
democratic union of equals do they? If we must have a monarchy - in any
form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
member state to rule in rotation?
The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
Hawddamor
dave
--
Dave Thomas
Kingsley Matthews
<cym...@aol.com> writes
>
>In article <36360706...@news.demon.co.uk>, gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk
>(Gareth Jones) writes:
>
>> Most english people I know (and despite the name, I am english
>>rather than welsh)
>
If he says he is, then he is.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Do you mean you agree that is what he believes or do you
>>agree with those alleged beliefs
>Dunno...but i would much prefer rule from Westminster than Brussels
>if that's any help?
>
difference? Good government could come from anywhere, bad government
too and we've just come through 18 years of bad government from London.
>>>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>>>led by Edward Heath.
>>>Um....only Heath?
>>Why stick at conservative governments.
>Beacause other parties threaten the United bit of the Kingdom?
>
What is so precious about the United Kingdom? It's had its day.
>>>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>>>masters, the English.
>>>Sheesh....what an oversimplificaton!! I am sure Marc, like many, have
>>>more reservations based on sound economic as well as political
>>>reasons.
>>Well some people may follow a particular political ideaology
>>but using 'economics' to foretell the future
>
>But it appears you 'euro addicts' are clearly able to foretell the
>future as you are obviously trying a 'hard sell' on the populous
>as to the great financial future we will have in the land of 'milk and
>honey'.
>
Nobody I know has said any of the above, where did you get it from?
>If you want us to convert please quantify the likely economic effects
>of full blown EU membership.
>
The economic effects will probably be very little, it's the political
and social effects of membership that put me in favour.
>>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>>>undemocratic.
>>I've never figured out what system we use but it isn't
>>democracy.
>Were we not promissed a referendum?
>
We were, and we will have one.
>>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>>Prove that it won't be.
>>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>>goods and services , Bad.
>What will be the effects of the euro on monetary policy?
>
Probably very little.
--
Kingsley
Gary Dale
"Dominating"? Erm, hello?
Cliff Morrison
> Were we not promissed a referendum?
Yes, but they are waiting till the question can be summat like:
"Do you think it was a good thing our irrevocably entering EMU and being
in effect ruled by the EUroCentral Bank, or would you have preferred to
be asked at the time?"
Maria
wrote:
>In article <3646695c...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>
>>(Does *your* wife assume that the only reason you spend so much time
>>"on the Internet" is because you are chatting up women?)
>
>Mine doesn't. But she does complain about the amount of time involved. :o(
I haven't got a wife.
(and I wouldn't want one either)
Maria
Cliff Morrison
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3634fa8...@news.demon.co.uk>, kjc
> <k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> writes
> >If you want us to convert please quantify the likely economic effects
> >of full blown EU membership.
> >
> The economic effects will probably be very little, it's the political
> and social effects of membership that put me in favour.
So by you own admission, lacking the will to change things from within the
country you have resorted to calling in outside assistance to impose the
changes you want?
The mentality of the serf, not the warrior.
algoss
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk (Marc Living) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:54:23 GMT, m'learned friend arf...@hotmail.com
>(algoss) made the following submissions:
>
>>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>>Prove that it won't be.
>
>>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>>goods and services , Bad.
>
>And if the price of maintaining the value of a currency that you can
>spend is unemployment in the North East?
>
If people are unemployed they won't have any gelt anyway.
They can't buy goods and services and they don't have the
resources to start manufacturing and trading on the
international markets again to make money which they
exchange for goods and services.................
>
A recipe for public disorder.
>--
Alan Goss
Maria
Lacking the mechanism rather than the will perhaps.
Maria
Maria
What is irrevocable about it, aside from the practicalities of
revoking it?
Maria
Cliff Morrison
in this instance, the wording was meant to convey the impression that
would tend to be given by the government to the voters when such a
question was finally posed.....
Ian Johnston
: Can you seriously contest this? Pretty much everyone acknowledges the
: lack of accountability in Europe (the fact that the Commission is
: unelected for example).
The Commissioners are no more than a bunch of senior civil servants who
propose to the European Parliament ways of implementing EU policy. They
have no power to act other than through the democratically elected
European Parliament.
I have never been asked to vote on senior Civil Service appointments in
Britain, but do not feel my live is made worse as a result. Or do you
find the lack of elections for the post of Cabinet Secretary to be a gaping
hole in democracy?
Ian
Ian Johnston
: >4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic
: "Dominating"? Erm, hello?
Remember the two central planks of net-nationalist belief:
a) England has for hundreds of years been trying to destroy Scottish culture
(I think it's El Chic who calls this cultural genocide...)
b) Scotland has a strong and distinctive culture which is gaining strength
daily.
Ian
Rob
>>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>>
>>
>>majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
>>and everywhere.
>>
>It is all about Westminster dictating. I would like a new union, a
>European Union, we have more in common than we have differences, it is
>the English who want to dominate, you won't dominate in Europe.
>
How is it "dictating", its main sin in the eyes of many is its
remoteness. The Parliament is merely passing laws and people from
every part of the country are represented.
The English naturally dominate in Westminster due to pure volume of
numbers.
>>The Conservatives offered a voice to the "no" campaign and we were
>>right to do so, now the votes have been cast and the results made
>>known we accept the decisions and work around them.
>>
>Big of you.
Well someone had to, no doubt you would have opposed any dissenting
voice. What is the matter, don't you like free speech my dear fellow.
>
>>Had the Welsh "no" vote had sufficient funding then the "yes" vote
>>would never have got through.
>>
>So, it doesn't count because of the funding, but all the times the
>tories won elections when they outspent all other parties, that counts.
Did I say it did not count, of course not.
>
>Don't patronise us.
>
>>I believe that if you have a Union where one partner is willing and
>>the other is not then it is time to say adios.
>>
>That has not yet happened, no matter how you and I might wish it so.
Then the only conclusion is that all parties are willing participants.
>
>>>2. Scots and Welsh should be grateful for the rule from Westminster
>>>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>>>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>>>led by Edward Heath.
>>
>>Not so, there is nothing of the Nanny approach from the Tories. It is
>>your beloved New labour that has the Nanny approach.
>>
>In your dreams!
In reality actually.
Please either refute my original comment or agree with it.
>
>>>
>>>3. We should not be ruled from across the sea in Continental Europe
>>>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>>>masters, the English.
>>
>>No, it is the loss of sovereignty that is a concern.
>
>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
>so amused at your bleating.
I think that to treat the potential loss of the sovereignty of the UK
within a single currency as a joke typifies your attitude to serious
issues old bean.
Perhaps you should have stuck to uk.singles
>
>>I think that in
>>the whole the EU is not THAT good to us, although it is beneficial to
>>be a member for trading reasons. The problem is the downside is
>>starting to outweigh the upside. Excessive regulation and dabbling in
>>our domestic affairs are starting to annoy people.
>>
>You want the benefits, but not the responsibilities. How English of
>you!
How racist of you
Most people wish for free trade between nations, the idea put forward
recently and championed by Ian Geldard re-NAFTA has serious merit
IMHO.
>
>>>
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>
>>The Scots and the Welsh have a disproportionate say in Westminster,
>>the current system is undemocratic. Scots/Welsh constituencies bya nd
>>large have 20,000 fewer voters than English ones. If anything our
>>politics is unduly influenced from Scotland and Wales.
>>
>But we still have no influence in spite of your cosmetic gerrymandering.
So the PM is a Scot, the Chancellor is a Scot as are other senior
members of government and you have NO influence ?
Your influence is overstated and disproportionate.
>
>>>
>>>5. Everything that can be owned is better being owned by private
>>>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>>>profits.
>>
>>Yes, privatisation is a good thing, profit is, of course, a motive,
>>but then are you saying these companies did not make a profit prior to
>>privatisation ?
>>
>Privatisation panders to greed, I don't happen to believe greed is a
>decent motive for government. If you do, then I think your values are
>those of the sewer.
Please answer the question.
>
>>>
>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>
>>That is too simplistic, it is the inherent loss of control over the
>>economy that goes with it that is of concern.
>>
>We had no control over the pound. International speculators (gamblers)
>controlled it. They will have less control over the Euro - that is
>good.
We have currently control over direct taxation, indirect taxation and
interest rates. We may lose that under a single currency.
>
>>>
>>>7. Subsidiarity was a tory idea, but when put into practice, i.e.
>>>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>>>such a good idea.
>>>
>>>8. erm ... that's it.
>>
>>I say my dear fellow, how spiffing to see you back here. I thought you
>>had left this group as it is a right wing cabal. Excellent to see your
>>thoughtful insight back.
>>
>Just a bit of cross-posting, if I hadn't, Marc might not have seen it,
>and that would not have been right. I still think your group is a
>right-wing cabal (your words).
True, Paul Hyett, John Robinson (where is he ?), Tober and Simon
Gardner are true Tories ;).
If anything this group is a left wing clique ;)
--------
Somebody Call my Momma, I'm fixen to hurt somebody"
James C. Woodard
Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>In article <70t5mt$kag$1...@spitting-spider.aracnet.com>, James C. Woodard
><gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>>
>>Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>>>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>>>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>>>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>>>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>>>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>>>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>>>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>>>comments.
>>
>>1. He's a Nationalist(Welsh)
>
>I am not and never have been.
I am not going to spend the time to search dejanews for posts in which you
imply if not outright state that you are a Welsh nationalist.
>
>>2. He's a socialist(member of both the Labour Party and the Fabian
Society)
>
>Yes I am both. Although my subscription to the Fabian Society and I
>don't think I will be renewing it.
>
>>3. What was the name of the Adolph fellow's party that came to power in
>>Germany in the 1930s? National Socialist, do I hear you say.
>
>Adolf's party (why don't you learn to spell?),
I notice you didn't have the least trouble knowing to whom I was referring.
> may have been National,
>it was never Socialist, despite what they called themselves.
Perhaps not in your view, but it was certainly on a socialist platform that
they rose to power and converted a lot of private assets to public
production(does the word Volkswagen ring a bell).
A tip,
>Jim, in politics, sometimes things are not what they seem.
>
>>4. What does this make Kingsley.
>
>I don't think it makes Kingsley anything, however, seeing that two out
>of the three comments are wrong, it says an awful lot about Jim!
Yes, mainly that I have learned how Kinglsey debates.
Kingsley Matthews
Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>In article <cOjV4MAJ...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <3634fa8...@news.demon.co.uk>, kjc
>> <k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> >If you want us to convert please quantify the likely economic effects
>> >of full blown EU membership.
>> >
>> The economic effects will probably be very little, it's the political
>> and social effects of membership that put me in favour.
>
>So by you own admission, lacking the will to change things from within the
>country you have resorted to calling in outside assistance to impose the
>changes you want?
What country is this that you are talking about?
>The mentality of the serf, not the warrior.
The mentality of anything is better than that of the warrior.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <z1A+mNAt...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <70t2bq$m...@axalotl.demon.co.uk>, Hugh Davies
>><hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <3639f2e5...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.
>co
>>>.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>>>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>>>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>>
>>>>My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>>>>touched.
>>>
>>>
>>>Pity that the initial article seems to be almost entirely the fictional
>>>ravings of someone from another planet entirely.
>>>
>>Answer me properly, don't evade the issue. Coward.
>
>You got an answer from Marc himself. Just about everything you posted
>was wrong or irrelevant.
>
>
I don't believe it was, see my responses to Marc. It is you who
inhabits a different planet.
--
Kingsley
Louise MacLeod
Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>I've been away for a few days, at a conference in Belfast, a wonderful
>city. On returning I find there are some extraordinarily long posting
>by our mutual friend Marc. I did think of replying but found that some
>of the questions he asked had been adequately answered by others, I will
>let them be. However, I think it is time we examined Marc's politics,
>he seems to be something of a relic from a bygone age and I wonder if he
>should be preserved and placed in a museum, or buried. I await
>comments.
>
>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>
>because the English are good to us and have our interests at heart.
>Especially when there is a Conservative Government, as long as it is not
>led by Edward Heath.
>
>because those nasty foreigners will not be as good to us are our natural
>masters, the English.
>
>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>
>individuals because they have our interests at heart and not their own
>profits.
>
>
>devolving decision making to a lower level than Westminster, it is not
>such a good idea.
>
>8. erm ... that's it.
Yes, but us natives don't know how to look after ourselves we need
Wesminster to care for us and make all the hard decisions!!
>--
>Kingsley
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Louise MacLeod wrote in message
<70vtcj$bnf$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>...
>
>Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>Yes, but us natives don't know how to look after ourselves we need
>Wesminster to care for us and make all the hard decisions!!
Yes we ahr verry sillee arun't wee? The Scots couldn't put Scotland yard in
the right country and the people from Wales were always welching* (*a racist
term which has escaped the politcally correct bureau)
Maria
Morrison) wrote:
>In article <3633373a...@news.clara.net>, to...@the.top (Maria) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:59:52 +0000, cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff
>> Morrison) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3634fa8...@news.demon.co.uk>, k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> >
>> >> Were we not promissed a referendum?
>> >
>> >Yes, but they are waiting till the question can be summat like:
>> >
>> >"Do you think it was a good thing our irrevocably entering EMU and being
>> > in effect ruled by the EUroCentral Bank, or would you have preferred to
>> > be asked at the time?"
>>
>> What is irrevocable about it, aside from the practicalities of
>> revoking it?
>
>in this instance, the wording was meant to convey the impression that
>would tend to be given by the government to the voters when such a
>question was finally posed.....
I didn't think the government would particularly want to convey the
impression that it was actually irrevocable...
Maria
Kingsley Matthews
<gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>>>Await no longer, let's examine Kingsley's politics.
>>>
>>>1. He's a Nationalist(Welsh)
>>
>>I am not and never have been.
>
>I am not going to spend the time to search dejanews for posts in which you
>imply if not outright state that you are a Welsh nationalist.
>
to some anti-nationalists who came across with idiotic arguments.
However, if that does not satisfy you, if I were a Nationalist, I would
belong to Plaid Cymru whose membership is incompatible with the Party I
do belong to - the Labour Party.
>>
>>>2. He's a socialist(member of both the Labour Party and the Fabian
>Society)
>>
>>Yes I am both. Although my subscription to the Fabian Society and I
>>don't think I will be renewing it.
>>
>>>3. What was the name of the Adolph fellow's party that came to power in
>>>Germany in the 1930s? National Socialist, do I hear you say.
>>
>>Adolf's party (why don't you learn to spell?),
>
>I notice you didn't have the least trouble knowing to whom I was referring.
>
And that makes me a nazi? Get a grip man.
>> may have been National,
>>it was never Socialist, despite what they called themselves.
>
>Perhaps not in your view, but it was certainly on a socialist platform that
>they rose to power and converted a lot of private assets to public
>production(does the word Volkswagen ring a bell).
>
OK, Jim, you have made your point, you have a paranoid fear of
socialism. Many people do, I'm sure you remember the McCarthy period in
the US. Would you really want to bring back those days?
> A tip,
>>Jim, in politics, sometimes things are not what they seem.
>>
>>>4. What does this make Kingsley.
>>
>>I don't think it makes Kingsley anything, however, seeing that two out
>>of the three comments are wrong, it says an awful lot about Jim!
>
>Yes, mainly that I have learned how Kinglsey debates.
>
At last, you have learnt I debate sensibly, or at least I try to, I tend
not to rubbish peoples opinions simply because they might have opinions
on other things too. If you would observe such honesty we might get
somewhere, but I won't hold my breath.
--
Kingsley
Stephen Copinger
Rob wrote in message <36342426...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>>No, it is the loss of sovereignty that is a concern.
>>
>>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
>>so amused at your bleating.
>
>I think that to treat the potential loss of the sovereignty of the UK
>within a single currency as a joke typifies your attitude to serious
>issues old bean.
There is a serious point here actually. The anti-EU politicians (of every
party) go on (and on and on...) about loss of Westminster sovereignty to the
EU. However, sovereignty of parliament is an English concept - Scottish
constitutional law derives sovereignty from the people, and this is
delegated to the crown and government. Therefore under this principle, loss
of sovereignty of Westminster is irrelevant; what matters is do the people
choose to transfer sovereignty to the EU.
I'm not arguing either side of this case, simply pointing out that anti-EU's
are "bleating" about something irrelevant to the Scots - the practical
issues and effects may be relevant but these aren't being raised merely an
English legal point. Scots law says more or less of sovereignty "the people
giveth, the people taketh away". In this case any EU arguments require to be
based on practicalities, not legalities.
If anti-EU's want to be taken seriously in Scotland, they will need to take
notice of the Scottish issues, otherwise they will simply be dismissed as
irrelevant.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Leo
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:57:14 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>But you once argured long and hard with me that the Welsh and English
>>were really the same people.
>I think that I argued that they were two parts of the same *country* -
>which, legally, they are - in a way that England and Scotland
>*aren't*.
The political difference is that Wales was brought into the English sphere
by conquest, whereas Scotland and England united as equal partners, at
least in theory.
>>Devolution 'as implemented' will probably not last very long, see the
>>recent history of Catalonia. There will be changes made as soon as the
>>two elected bodies meet, Ron Davies said it was the beginning not the
>>end of a process, and the process will continue until we get it
>>approximately right.
>Hmmm. We'll see. And I don't see how "fine tuning" of the respective
>gasworks will change matters. The destabilisation arises from the fact
>that the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island will be
>governed on a different basis to (what will be seen as) a privileged
>minority.
They might not be seen as priviledged if their income tax goes up by 3p:-)
<splat>
>>>As for the Scots and Welsh, I still haven't received any answer as to
>>>why they believe that they have a greater right than I do to complain
>>>about a Government elected with a majority in the UK.
>>This Weslhman, resident in Scotland (I've been here long enough to play
>>for them), believes you have as great a right to complain as any of us.
>>I have never met any Welshperson or Scot who believes otherwise.
>And yet if I were to talk about how "undemocratic" it is that 50 odd
>million people together have more say in the governance of the country
>than I do, I would be led away to the funny farm - not given my very
>own assembly.
This crude majoritarianism is a very English idea of democracy. (cf. thread
title!) More sophisticated theories of democracy encompass the idea of
substantial, entrenched autonomy for well-defined minorities.
My view is that each individual is a well defined minority, but that is an
idea which has not yet caught on. However, autonomy for the well defined
minorities living in Scotland and Wales is perfectly compatible with
mainstream democratic theory -- an autonomy which England doesn't need, not
being a minority in the UK.
>>>My whole point is simple. If Scotland and Wales wish to remain part of
>>>the UK, then they must put up, with as good grace as they can muster,
>>>with the policies of the duly elected Government of the UK.
>>We do, but we still occasionally whinge.
>And complain about "English domination".
With justice.
<crunch>
>>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic.
>>>40 million votes overriding 6 and a half million votes *is*
>>>democratic. I should be very interested to hear a definition of
>>>"democracy" which says otherwise.
Not if the 40 million as one body and the 6.5 million as another body
joined in an equal partnership.
>>But they still dominate, fairly or not.
>You said that it was not democratic. Do you now agree that it *is*
>democratic - whilst maintaining that it is nevertheless not fair?
>> Those of on the side of those
>>6.5 million votes have absolutely no chance of making any changes.
>They have as much chance as any group of 6.5 million people in
>England. How much more of a chance *should* they have?
AIUI this was determined in some detail by the Act of Union. Since
Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts, this has the status of a
gnetlemen's agreement rather than a legally binding contract. Nonetheless
the Scots believed that England was in honour bound by that agreement, and
that Thatcher's Scottish policy flouted it, which is why Scottish autonomy
has been an issue since then.
>>That
>>was a similar problem in Northern Ireland, the majority continued to
>>vote to dispossess the minority who were failed by the democratic
>>process that had been imposed on them.
>Indeed. That is an argument against democracy. Do you agree therefore
>that democracy is not fair?
I would agree that crude majoritarianism is not fair. I would question
whether it deserves to be called democracy.
>>Scots and Welsh have been
>>similarly failed, something devolution will help to redress.
>If by "similarly failed" you mean that the Scots and Welsh have been
>treated in the way that Stormont treated the nationalists, then I
>would vehemently disagree.
Not in the recent past, anyway.
>If, OTOH you simply mean that 6.5 million Scots and Welsh people
>should, for some reason, have more say in the government of the UK
>than an equivalent number of Englishmen, then I would be very
>interested to hear how you justify such a contention.
As well defined minorities, they should have autonomous control over their
own affairs. That does not affect the rest of the UK.
>>>>Joining
>>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>>If a small number of people have the same say as a large number of
>>>people then that is *not* democratic. It may be a better system, or
>>>indeed fairer - but not "democratic".
>>I didn't once say that the EU is democratic, but I am confident they
>>become so in time.
>If the EU becomes democratic, then Scotland's 6 million would have
>even less say in the EU, than it currently does in the UK - for the
>simple reason that it would be an even smaller minority in the EU than
>it is in the UK.
How so? Compare...
An independent Scotland in the EU sends a minister to the Council of
Ministers, commissioners to the Commission, takes its turn in the
Presidency, etc..
An undevolved Scotland in the UK gets a viceroy ('Secretary of State') sent
from Whitehall to rule over it.
In which scenario does Scotland have less say?
>>However safeguards must be put in place in order to
>>protects the regions,
>Do you want it to be democratic or not?
Cross-purpose as to what democracy is?
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy-lover
"Hatred is a passionate wish for destruction; love is a passionate affirma-
tion of an 'object'; ...an active striving and inner relatedness, the aim
of which is the happiness, growth, and freedom of its object." --Fromm
Rob
I can see a Jerry Springer episode in the making here ;)
>
>Maria
Kingsley Matthews
<hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <Az2SHEA0...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews
>
>>>You got an answer from Marc himself. Just about everything you posted
>>>was wrong or irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't believe it was,
>
>
I didn't realise he could count.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
writes
wouldn't pay his gambling debts.
--
Kingsley
Cliff Morrison
<S-Cop...@zetnet.co.bounce.uk> wrote:
> Rob wrote in message <36342426...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>>No, it is the loss of sovereignty that is a concern.
> >>
> >>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
> >>so amused at your bleating.
> >
> >I think that to treat the potential loss of the sovereignty of the UK
> >within a single currency as a joke typifies your attitude to serious
> >issues old bean.
>
>
> There is a serious point here actually. The anti-EU politicians (of every
> party) go on (and on and on...) about loss of Westminster sovereignty to the
> EU. However, sovereignty of parliament is an English concept - Scottish
> constitutional law derives sovereignty from the people, and this is
> delegated to the crown and government. Therefore under this principle, loss
> of sovereignty of Westminster is irrelevant; what matters is do the people
> choose to transfer sovereignty to the EU.
>
> I'm not arguing either side of this case, simply pointing out that anti-EU's
> are "bleating" about something irrelevant to the Scots - the practical
> issues and effects may be relevant but these aren't being raised merely an
> English legal point. Scots law says more or less of sovereignty "the people
> giveth, the people taketh away". In this case any EU arguments require to be
> based on practicalities, not legalities.
>
> If anti-EU's want to be taken seriously in Scotland, they will need to take
> notice of the Scottish issues, otherwise they will simply be dismissed as
> irrelevant.
Good point!
To previous suggestion that there was a significant difference between the
English and Scottish definitions of sovereignty, the only response seemed
to be "so what, it makes no difference", or something along the -
admittedly true in a realpolitik way - lines of sovereignty residing with
whoever takes power.
Maria
wrote:
>Most people wish for free trade between nations, the idea put forward
>recently and championed by Ian Geldard re-NAFTA has serious merit
>IMHO.
If most people wish for free trade, why do we have to belong to some
organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
trade freely does not have to join in....
Maria
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>In article <z1A+mNAt...@kandam.demon.co.uk>, Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <70t2bq$m...@axalotl.demon.co.uk>, Hugh Davies
>><hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <3639f2e5...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co
>>>.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>>>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:21:31 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>>>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>>
>>>>My own thread. An honour which used to be reserved for Boothroyd. I'm
>>>>touched.
>>>
>>>Quite so.
>>>
>>>Pity that the initial article seems to be almost entirely the fictional
>>>ravings of someone from another planet entirely.
>>>
>>Answer me properly, don't evade the issue. Coward.
>
>You got an answer from Marc himself. Just about everything you posted
>was wrong or irrelevant.
That's Kingsley for you.
Hey Kingsley, what do you reckon to Wales chances in this years 5
Nations ?
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <36446878...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.
>BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 18:54:23 GMT, m'learned friend arf...@hotmail.com
>>(algoss) made the following submissions:
>>>>>6. The pound is good, the Euro is bad.
>>>>Prove that it won't be.
>>>If I can spend it Good . If no one wants to exchange it for
>>>goods and services , Bad.
>>And if the price of maintaining the value of a currency that you can
>>spend is unemployment in the North East?
>Is that really the price?
According to Eddie George.
>Bollocks!
Well he would have wouldn't he. Being a bloke and all.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Marc Living
<Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <3631e9c9...@news.demon.co.uk>, kjc
><k...@gemnet.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>1. He believes that the only rule in the UK should come from
>>>Westminster, certainly not Brussels, not Edinburgh and certainly not
>>>Cardiff because the Welsh are just regional English.
>>I would agree with this...
>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic. Joining
>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>Joining the EU and a single currency without a referendum is
>>undemocratic.
>Erm..is it any more or less undemocratic than joining Wales to England
>without a referendum?
I don't think that anybody would accuse the Plantagenets (or Glendower
for that matter) of being democrats.
Since England & Wales have emerged into a more democratic age joined
together, it is now open to the Welsh to dissolve that union should
they wish to do so.
>How do you get a Union from the joining of unequals? Would it be a
>democratic system if say the state of Texas had more representatives in
>the senate that the rest of the states put together?
If Texas had more people than the rest of the states put together then
of course it would be democratic for them to have the representation
to reflect that fact. How could you argue otherwise? Democracy is
about *people*, not the place they happen to inhabit.
>Forced allegiances and conquered territories scarcely make for a
>democratic union of equals do they?
For heavens sake. Do you say that every country which has extended
beyond its "original" (whatever you take that to mean) boundaries is
illegitimate? You have to deal with the *real* world - not the one you
think it ought to have been.
>If we must have a monarchy - in any
>form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
>member state to rule in rotation?
"They" do. They all just happen to be the one person:-)
(Perhaps that's why the monarch always refers to herself as "we":-)
>The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
>dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
The peerage is not democratic.
Stephen Copinger
Leo wrote in message <36335ca...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>AIUI this was determined in some detail by the Act of Union. Since
>Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts, this has the status of a
>gnetlemen's agreement rather than a legally binding contract. Nonetheless
>the Scots believed that England was in honour bound by that agreement, and
>that Thatcher's Scottish policy flouted it, which is why Scottish autonomy
>has been an issue since then.
To correct this slightly - It is the Treaty of Union and two subsequent
Acts, of the English and Scottish Parliaments ratifying it. The doctrine
that "Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts" or "Sovereignty of
Parliament" is and English legal principle, not existing in Scots
constitutional law. That is the crux of the matter - in England the Treaty
is considered a gentlemens agreement or statement of intention or suchlike,
whereas in Scotland it is considered a fundamental constitutional document
for the present parliamentary system. This (among other causes) has led to
calls for a change of the present system - its not just honour but law also.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Kingsley Matthews
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:11:03 +0000, m'learned friend Dave Thomas
><Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>without a referendum?
>
>I don't think that anybody would accuse the Plantagenets (or Glendower
>for that matter) of being democrats.
>
meant with your gross misspelling) certainly was. The parliament
building at Machynlleth still stands. The democracy was all very
relative of course, as Einstein might have said.
<snipped bits that have been answered elswhere>
>>Forced allegiances and conquered territories scarcely make for a
>>democratic union of equals do they?
>
>For heavens sake. Do you say that every country which has extended
>beyond its "original" (whatever you take that to mean) boundaries is
>illegitimate?
Nobody said that, you really ought to read the posts. It still doesn't
make for a union of equals.
>You have to deal with the *real* world - not the one you
>think it ought to have been.
>
I think the real world is being dealt with here.
>>If we must have a monarchy - in any
>>form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
>>member state to rule in rotation?
>
>"They" do. They all just happen to be the one person:-)
>
And a very undemocratic person at that.
>(Perhaps that's why the monarch always refers to herself as "we":-)
>
>>The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
>>dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
>
>The peerage is not democratic.
>
I think we all know that.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>Good point!
>To previous suggestion that there was a significant difference between the
>English and Scottish definitions of sovereignty, the only response seemed
>to be "so what, it makes no difference", or something along the -
>admittedly true in a realpolitik way - lines of sovereignty residing with
>whoever takes power.
Spoken like a true Leninist!
--
Kingsley
James C. Woodard
Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
><gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>>>>Await no longer, let's examine Kingsley's politics.
>OK, Jim, you have made your point, you have a paranoid fear of
>socialism.
Not a paranoid fear but an utter conviction of the unviability and
unfairness of sociallist political goals and a complete lack of respect of
the dishonest manner in which they are usually "sold" to the electorate.
> Many people do, I'm sure you remember the McCarthy period in
>the US. Would you really want to bring back those days?
No, I don't wish to return to the days of yore, but that said McCarthy was
completely outside all law and reason in his methods and absolutely correct
in his allegation of the government of the United States being filled with
closet communists and socialists. My main objection to those people being
in the positions they were in is that if their politics had been known they
would never have been accepted for those positions at that point in history.
They therefore obtained those jobs under false pretenses. When accepting a
position of a political nature one's political beliefs are a legitimate
reason to refuse them the sought employment.
>
>> A tip,
>>>Jim, in politics, sometimes things are not what they seem.
>>>
>>>>4. What does this make Kingsley.
>>>
>>>I don't think it makes Kingsley anything, however, seeing that two out
>>>of the three comments are wrong, it says an awful lot about Jim!
>>
>>Yes, mainly that I have learned how Kinglsey debates.
>>
>At last, you have learnt I debate sensibly, or at least I try to, I tend
>not to rubbish peoples opinions simply because they might have opinions
>on other things too. If you would observe such honesty we might get
>somewhere, but I won't hold my breath.
No, Kingsley, I have learned that when you are caught spouting utter crap,
you evade, ignore, and maintain that it's the absolute truth. I will
observe honest debate right after you answer one question: When did England
come into being? But I won't hold my breath.
Jim
James C. Woodard
Stephen Copinger wrote in message <7108tb$ri1$1...@roch.zetnet.co.uk>...
>>Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts, this has the status of a
>>gnetlemen's agreement rather than a legally binding contract. Nonetheless
>>the Scots believed that England was in honour bound by that agreement, and
>>that Thatcher's Scottish policy flouted it, which is why Scottish autonomy
>>has been an issue since then.
>
>
>Acts, of the English and Scottish Parliaments ratifying it. The doctrine
>that "Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts" or "Sovereignty of
>Parliament" is and English legal principle, not existing in Scots
>constitutional law. That is the crux of the matter - in England the Treaty
>is considered a gentlemens agreement or statement of intention or suchlike,
>whereas in Scotland it is considered a fundamental constitutional document
>for the present parliamentary system. This (among other causes) has led to
>calls for a change of the present system - its not just honour but law
also.
>
>Beannachd leibh
>Stephen
>
>
these differences in English and Scottish law at the time of Union.
Jim
James C. Woodard
Maria wrote in message <3633a1db...@news.clara.net>...
>>recently and championed by Ian Geldard re-NAFTA has serious merit
>>IMHO.
>
>organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
>Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
>trade freely does not have to join in....
>
>Maria
bureaucrats in that method.
Jim
Robin
<gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>>>more democratic than the EU.
>>>
>>Utter Bollocks!
>
>Can you seriously contest this? Pretty much everyone acknowledges the
>lack of accountability in Europe (the fact that the Commission is
>unelected for example). The UK's democracy is far from perfect (or
>even adequate to my mind), but the EUs is much worse.
>
>Gareth
>
>
Oh so that explains why aggrieved individuals have had to seek justice
at the European Court of Human Rights, is it?
Presumably the UK system was just too democratic!!
--
Robin ( the P***artist formally known as Splee )
Please remove 'spam' on reply.
Marc Living
l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo) made the following submissions:
>ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:57:14 +0100, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>But you once argured long and hard with me that the Welsh and English
>>>were really the same people.
>>I think that I argued that they were two parts of the same *country* -
>>which, legally, they are - in a way that England and Scotland
>>*aren't*.
>The political difference is that Wales was brought into the English sphere
>by conquest, whereas Scotland and England united as equal partners, at
>least in theory.
If we were starting from the 12th century your point may be valid. If
we were talking about a Wales which showed a majority wanting to
reverse that annexation, your point might be valid.
It isn't the 12th century, there aren't a majority of nationalists in
Wales, and your point is therefore invalid.
>>>Devolution 'as implemented' will probably not last very long, see the
>>>recent history of Catalonia. There will be changes made as soon as the
>>>two elected bodies meet, Ron Davies said it was the beginning not the
>>>end of a process, and the process will continue until we get it
>>>approximately right.
>>Hmmm. We'll see. And I don't see how "fine tuning" of the respective
>>gasworks will change matters. The destabilisation arises from the fact
>>that the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island will be
>>governed on a different basis to (what will be seen as) a privileged
>>minority.
>They might not be seen as priviledged if their income tax goes up by 3p:-)
True:-)
><splat>
>>>>As for the Scots and Welsh, I still haven't received any answer as to
>>>>why they believe that they have a greater right than I do to complain
>>>>about a Government elected with a majority in the UK.
>>>This Weslhman, resident in Scotland (I've been here long enough to play
>>>for them), believes you have as great a right to complain as any of us.
>>>I have never met any Welshperson or Scot who believes otherwise.
>>And yet if I were to talk about how "undemocratic" it is that 50 odd
>>million people together have more say in the governance of the country
>>than I do, I would be led away to the funny farm - not given my very
>>own assembly.
>This crude majoritarianism is a very English idea of democracy.
On the contrary. *Liberal* democracy is the very English idea of
democracy - one with a limited government, well defined rights and
responsibilities and very much governed by laissez faire.
One which doesn't even recognise - let alone accord any status to -
"minorities", however "well-defined" they may be: but deals with
people as individuals and/or families.
> (cf. thread
>title!) More sophisticated theories of democracy encompass the idea of
>substantial, entrenched autonomy for well-defined minorities.
Defined by whom exactly? Would gun-owners count? What about
beef-eaters? And if not, why not?
And what do you mean by autonomy? Do you mean independence? I would
have no quibble with that.
The only system of "democracy" which I am aware of which explicitly
encompassed "substantial, entrenched autonomy for well-defined
minorities" was the apartheid system in South Africa. Was that what
you had in mind?
>My view is that each individual is a well defined minority, but that is an
>idea which has not yet caught on.
It did actually catch on - during the 19th century.
>However, autonomy for the well defined
>minorities living in Scotland and Wales is perfectly compatible with
>mainstream democratic theory -- an autonomy which England doesn't need, not
>being a minority in the UK.
On what possible logical or philosophical basis can you justify this?
Do you say that all minorities should be so autonomous? What about
Hampshiremen? They are a minority. Or coalminers? Or aristocrats? Or
people with big noses? Should they all be "autonomous"?
And if not, why not? Why is your definition of what constitutes a
"well-defined minority" any better than one which I might come up
with?
>>>>My whole point is simple. If Scotland and Wales wish to remain part of
>>>>the UK, then they must put up, with as good grace as they can muster,
>>>>with the policies of the duly elected Government of the UK.
>>>We do, but we still occasionally whinge.
>>And complain about "English domination".
>With justice.
With nothing which could rationally be described as "justice". The
only justification (even in your argument) is that certain people,
because of an accident of birth (or choice of habitat), should be
treated differently from everybody else.
No reason is given as to *why* this should be the case - simply waffle
about "well-established minorities" which is as meaningless in this
context as it has been dangerous in others.
><crunch>
>>>>>4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic.
>>>>40 million votes overriding 6 and a half million votes *is*
>>>>democratic. I should be very interested to hear a definition of
>>>>"democracy" which says otherwise.
>Not if the 40 million as one body and the 6.5 million as another body
>joined in an equal partnership.
There is nothing in the Act of Union which says anything about England
and Scotland receiving an equal number of votes.
What it *does* provide is that an English*man* and a Scots*man* shall
be equally represented (with a specified "top-up" for Scottish
voters). This is exactly what happens.
(Quite apart from the ... erm ... surprising implied assertion that 40
million Englishmen vote "en bloc" - or that the Scots do likewise.)
>>>But they still dominate, fairly or not.
>>You said that it was not democratic. Do you now agree that it *is*
>>democratic - whilst maintaining that it is nevertheless not fair?
>>> Those of on the side of those
>>>6.5 million votes have absolutely no chance of making any changes.
>>They have as much chance as any group of 6.5 million people in
>>England. How much more of a chance *should* they have?
>AIUI this was determined in some detail by the Act of Union.
Indeed. And has been adhered to.
>Since
>Parliament is not bound by its previous Acts, this has the status of a
>gnetlemen's agreement rather than a legally binding contract.
There is an argument that the Act of Union cannot be changed by
Parliament. The argument is along the lines that because the UK
Parliament was brought into existence by the Act of Union, that
Parliament doesn't have the power to amend that which brought it into
existence.
I'm not sure if this has ever been argued in England but ISTR some
posters saying that Scottish judges have speculated along these lines.
It would be interesting to see if there is a challenge to the planned
reduction in the number of Scottish MPs.
>Nonetheless
>the Scots believed that England was in honour bound by that agreement, and
>that Thatcher's Scottish policy flouted it,
How?
>which is why Scottish autonomy
>has been an issue since then.
No it hasn't. The first devolution debate (1) (and referendum) was
before Thatcher even came to power. The main grounds then were that
England was rapidly going down the drain and that it was a shame to
throw good (oil) money after bad.
(1) I say the "first", but I understand that there was a Scottish home
rule bill mooted before WW1 - but I do not know enough about it to
comment.
>>>That
>>>was a similar problem in Northern Ireland, the majority continued to
>>>vote to dispossess the minority who were failed by the democratic
>>>process that had been imposed on them.
>>Indeed. That is an argument against democracy. Do you agree therefore
>>that democracy is not fair?
>I would agree that crude majoritarianism is not fair. I would question
>whether it deserves to be called democracy.
Of course it is democracy. It is not *liberal* democracy - but then
neither is granting special status to minorities (whether
"well-defined" or not) something envisaged by liberal democracy.
>>>Scots and Welsh have been
>>>similarly failed, something devolution will help to redress.
>>If by "similarly failed" you mean that the Scots and Welsh have been
>>treated in the way that Stormont treated the nationalists, then I
>>would vehemently disagree.
>Not in the recent past, anyway.
If you have a point then make it. If you concede the point then
concede it. A reluctant concession along these lines doesn't impress.
>>If, OTOH you simply mean that 6.5 million Scots and Welsh people
>>should, for some reason, have more say in the government of the UK
>>than an equivalent number of Englishmen, then I would be very
>>interested to hear how you justify such a contention.
>As well defined minorities, they should have autonomous control over their
>own affairs. That does not affect the rest of the UK.
Not under any coherent system of jurisprudence.
>>>>>Joining
>>>>>together with more of an equal say in a United Europe is not democratic.
>>>>If a small number of people have the same say as a large number of
>>>>people then that is *not* democratic. It may be a better system, or
>>>>indeed fairer - but not "democratic".
>>>I didn't once say that the EU is democratic, but I am confident they
>>>become so in time.
>>If the EU becomes democratic, then Scotland's 6 million would have
>>even less say in the EU, than it currently does in the UK - for the
>>simple reason that it would be an even smaller minority in the EU than
>>it is in the UK.
>How so? Compare...
Your examples are of the present (undemocratic) EU, not the more
democratic EU which Kingsley is looking forward to, nevertheless ...
>An independent Scotland in the EU sends a minister to the Council of
>Ministers, commissioners to the Commission, takes its turn in the
>Presidency, etc..
It would send *one* commissioner (under the new proposals) who would,
in any event, be treaty bound to go native as soon as he gets off the
plane.
>An undevolved Scotland in the UK gets a viceroy ('Secretary of State') sent
>from Whitehall to rule over it.
Or, put another way, Scotland already benefits from having its
interests advanced by its very own cabinet minister - a benefit not
given to the majority of the people in this country.
A benefit which IMO should never have been granted, and should be
abolished forthwith.
(Of course, the way you look at something will determine what you feel
about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of Scots
blames the English for "forcing" an expensive "colonial assembly", or
"Bantustan status", on them.)
>In which scenario does Scotland have less say?
In a democratic EU.
>>>However safeguards must be put in place in order to
>>>protects the regions,
>>Do you want it to be democratic or not?
>Cross-purpose as to what democracy is?
Democracy is giving every individual an equal say in the running of
the country.
Liberal democracy is giving every individual a maximum of (equal)
rights and responsibilities - and an equal say in the running of the
country.
The only systems of government which I can think of in which
"well-defined minorities" have been treated differently from each
other and/or from the majority have been rather nasty types of
government - not the sort which I would imagine you to be advocating.
Charles Mcgregor
from engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) contains these words:
> Gary Dale (g...@ee.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> : >4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic
> : "Dominating"? Erm, hello?
> Remember the two central planks of net-nationalist belief:
> a) England has for hundreds of years been trying to destroy Scottish culture
> (I think it's El Chic who calls this cultural genocide...)
<sigh> Of course I have never said this at all. The phrase does not
make any sense at all to me since genocide implies ethnic killings
and IMV the cultural definition has no genetic component whatsoever.
I have identified cultural fascism, which is usually perpotrated by
individuals, and is a matter of simple suppression,(not mass killings),
but that, I consider to be an observation, rather than a belief.
I have also pointed out that it is in the nature of all Empires to attempt
to suppress it's constituant nations' cultures purely for reasons of
expediency if nothing else (and not just the English Empire).
However, I have also pointed out that the self-same Imperial powers
have themselves, somewhat ironically, suffered the most in terms of
loss of cultural distinction. The more powerful, the worse they seem
to have been affected.
In fact I have argued against the general principle of genocide as a
historical reality altogether. (Except of course for the famous
example of this century w.r.t the Jewish people). Historical
'genocides' have in the past been greatly exaggerated.
> b) Scotland has a strong and distinctive culture which is gaining strength
> daily.
Scotland has always had a strong and distinctive culture. I wouldn't like
to say whether it is 'gaining' or 'losing' strength, whatever that means.
The fact that it exists at all is sufficient.
It is also a fact that we are living in a post-Imperial age and although
there will be some Imperialistic border-dispute legacy still to be
thrashed out, the era of major military conflicts should, hopefully,
be behind us.
I made a recent mistake with Mr Riddle for which I apologised.
I ignored the 'Nit's' factual error and snipping which implied that I
had said there was no TV coverage of the air control privatisation
story, when in fact I had said the opposite, because he is an idiot
and prone to such errors, however, your 'mistakes' are all too
frequent and with nere an apology.
It is my belief that your 'mistakes' are malicious.
regards
chic
Cliff Morrison
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well, if you read it again, it wasn't a case of me advocating it -- far as
I recall, the remark to that effect was by a libertarian, objectively
commenting on how things have turned out in real-life history.
Paul Floyd
Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Personally I'd rather see Brussels far more accountable, and the European
>>parliament either scrapped or made less of a waste of time.
>Interesting that you'd like the most democratic part of the EU scrapped.
>How would you like to see the rest accountable?
As the European Parliament is effectively impotent, I think scrapping it
would save a lot of money. Alternatively, it could be given some significant
powers (like selection of Commissioners). At the moment all it does is give
the EU a bad image.
Salut
Paul
>--
>Kingsley
--
Dr. Paul Floyd, Department of Electrical Engineering (sort of)
University of Manchester, UK "@afs.mcc..." not meehpc.ee.man
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>He wishes to preserve the Union as he believes it is of benefit to the
>>majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
>>and everywhere.
>It is all about Westminster dictating. I would like a new union, a
>European Union, we have more in common than we have differences, it is
>the English who want to dominate,
This is what its all about isn't it. This fantasy of yours (and all
those others who desperately want to be seen as "victims", rather than
inadequates) that the "English" want to "dominate".
In pursuit of which, no claim is so outrageous that it is left unmade,
no non sequitur so blatant that it is left unsaid. In which the
definition of "democracy" is twisted and perverted so that it can
encompass the concept of a small minority having the same say as a
large majority, and in which a sense of proportion is so totally
lacking that an integral (and voluntary) part of the UK is busy
convincing itself that it is nothing more than a colony of a
fictitious English Empire.
Reading some of the total distortions of reality made by a *few*
nationalists (present company excepted) I really do have doubts as to
their sanity. And yet they go unremarked and uncorrected by other,
more balanced, nationalists.
And at the bottom of it all appears to be a hatred of the English. A
conviction that the English are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to
"dominate" the Scots - and that Englishmen all go to the polling
station with the sole intention of voting for whichever party will
most upset them.
>you won't dominate in Europe.
<snip>
>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
>so amused at your bleating.
And this perhaps is one of the main attractions of Europe. It doesn't
matter that it is less democratic than you will wish. That a single EU
currency might be even more inappropriate to Scotland than a single UK
currency is irrelevant.
The main point is that the English will "get what's coming to them".
Isn't *that* what is really happening here? Not that the English want
to dominate, but that *you* want to see the English dominated?
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>I think that in
>>the whole the EU is not THAT good to us, although it is beneficial to
>>be a member for trading reasons. The problem is the downside is
>>starting to outweigh the upside. Excessive regulation and dabbling in
>>our domestic affairs are starting to annoy people.
>You want the benefits, but not the responsibilities. How English of
>you!
ROTFL.
This from a person who strongly advocates devolution for Scotland - a
way in which Scotland retains the benefits of UK membership, but
avoids the "excessive regulation and dabbling in our domestic
affairs", because they were annoying people.
How Scottish of you.
Marc Living
Copinger" <S-Cop...@zetnet.co.bounce.uk> made the following
submissions:
>However, sovereignty of parliament is an English concept - Scottish
>constitutional law derives sovereignty from the people, and this is
>delegated to the crown and government. Therefore under this principle, loss
>of sovereignty of Westminster is irrelevant; what matters is do the people
>choose to transfer sovereignty to the EU.
Which raises the question of where the EU sees sovereignty as
residing. They may not accept the Scottish view of sovereignty.
Marc Living
<Lou...@nicleoid.freeserve.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>Yes, but us natives don't know how to look after ourselves we need
>Wesminster to care for us and make all the hard decisions!!
If you are determined to convince yourself that you are nothing more
than a "native" under the heel of Westminster overlords, then there is
little that I can say to convince you otherwise.
I would however, ask you to explain how your vote wrt the Westminster
Parliament is so much less valid than mine.
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <364132b9...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.B
>OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:11:03 +0000, m'learned friend Dave Thomas
>><Da...@qantam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>Erm..is it any more or less undemocratic than joining Wales to England
>>>without a referendum?
>>I don't think that anybody would accuse the Plantagenets (or Glendower
>>for that matter) of being democrats.
>The Plantagenets may not have been, but Glyndwr (I think that is who you
>meant with your gross misspelling) certainly was. The parliament
>building at Machynlleth still stands. The democracy was all very
>relative of course, as Einstein might have said.
Indeed.
The Plantagenets had a Privy Council also. But not what anybody today
would call "democratic".
(Mind you, reading some of the comments about how it is "democratic"
for minorities to have the right to veto majorities, perhaps I am
being old fashioned here.)
><snipped bits that have been answered elswhere>
>>>Forced allegiances and conquered territories scarcely make for a
>>>democratic union of equals do they?
>>For heavens sake. Do you say that every country which has extended
>>beyond its "original" (whatever you take that to mean) boundaries is
>>illegitimate?
>Nobody said that, you really ought to read the posts.
It was a necessary implication, without which your point would not
have made sense.
>It still doesn't
>make for a union of equals.
In what way is an individual Englishman more "equal" than an
individual Scotsman/Welshman?
>>You have to deal with the *real* world - not the one you
>>think it ought to have been.
>I think the real world is being dealt with here.
The real world is of an England, Wales and Scotland who have been
joined together (politically) for a long time, and whose inhabitants
have never elected majorities to say that they should not continue to
be so joined.
The real world is also that the vast majority of the people on this
island chose to live on one part of it. And the real world is that it
is therefore *that* part which sends the most representatives to their
joint Parliament.
It is you who claims that all that is somehow unfair. I am still
waiting for a coherent reason as to *why* it is unfair.
>>>If we must have a monarchy - in any
>>>form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
>>>member state to rule in rotation?
>>"They" do. They all just happen to be the one person:-)
>And a very undemocratic person at that.
Indeed. But you don't appear to like the effects of democracy wrt the
head of government, so why are you any more likely to like those
effects wrt a head of state?
>>(Perhaps that's why the monarch always refers to herself as "we":-)
>>>The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
>>>dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
>>The peerage is not democratic.
>I think we all know that.
I thought we did. Mind you, seeing some of the arguments that a
"well-defined minority" should be allowed a veto over the majority,
I'm not so sure. After all, the aristocracy are a well-defined
minority.
Anthony Zachary
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <36345e89...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gareth Jones
><gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Kingsley Matthews <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>There is a sense in which this is true - the united kingdom is much
>>>>more democratic than the EU.
>>>>
>>>Utter Bollocks!
>>
>>Can you seriously contest this? Pretty much everyone acknowledges the
>>lack of accountability in Europe
>>
>>Gareth
>>
>>
>Oh so that explains why aggrieved individuals have had to seek justice
>at the European Court of Human Rights, is it?
>
>Presumably the UK system was just too democratic!!
The ECtHR is not part of the EU or the EC. It is an independent
organisation founded in the European Convention on Human Rights,
signed by European states in their own personas. Once the ECHR is
incorporated into British law, applicants will be able to seek redress
through British courts. Democracy don't enter into it.
As an interesting side-note on the ECHR: the ECHR was drafted after
the war by British lawyers and jurists to ensure that the
newly-liberated countries of Europe would enjoy the rights that we did
here in the UK. That's one of the reasons why the ECHR wasn't
incorporated at an earlier stage. Of course, HR law develops like any
other law, and the UK has been rather left behind.
Now, at last, it is being incorporated, but I'm afraid it still has
nothing to do with the EU (other than that the EU is probably also
bound by it).
AZ
Robin
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Gary Dale (g...@ee.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >4. English dominating Scots and Welsh is democratic
>
>: "Dominating"? Erm, hello?
>
>Remember the two central planks of net-nationalist belief:
>
>a) England has for hundreds of years been trying to destroy Scottish culture
> (I think it's El Chic who calls this cultural genocide...)
>
> daily.
>
You forgot another:
c) That the US is attempting to impose a culture of complete facile
tosh, laced with paranoia on us all!
Robin
writes
>On 25 Oct 1998 11:57:19 GMT, hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3646695c...@news.clara.net>, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.
>co.uk (Marc Living) writes:
>>
>>>(Does *your* wife assume that the only reason you spend so much time
>>>"on the Internet" is because you are chatting up women?)
>>
>>Mine doesn't. But she does complain about the amount of time involved. :o(
>
>I haven't got a wife.
>(and I wouldn't want one either)
>
>Maria
My wife has *always* complained that she needs a wife :) I assumed women
*liked* cleaning toilets!!
<thwaaaaak...och,och,och>
R. Knauer
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>But Marc does, and that's all that counts.
>I didn't realise he could count.
In an incredible experiment, one that appears to shoot down at least
3,000 years of Western philosophy regarding the nature of rational
intellect, two monkeys were taught to count from 1 to 4 in ascending
order. Then the count was extended to 9 and without further
instruction the monkeys extended their knowledge to include the new
numbers. That means 2 things at a minimum:
1) Man is not the only rational animal on Earth;
2) Mathematical reasoning precedes language.
Tough luck, Rene Descarte - you were dead wrong to claim that language
was necesary to be able to reason. And from Aristotle thru Aquinas to
modern times, classical and scholastic philosophy was dead wrong as
regards rational intellect.
Bob Knauer
"Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."
--Mark Twain
R. Knauer
>If most people wish for free trade, why do we have to belong to some
>organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
>Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
>trade freely does not have to join in....
Currency translation matters and trade inbalances can affect the local
economy, so countries correctly attempt to control those things.
To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
into a dark ages if that ever happened.
Maria
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 22:13:09 GMT, to...@the.top (Maria) wrote:
>
>>If most people wish for free trade, why do we have to belong to some
>>organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
>>Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
>>trade freely does not have to join in....
>
>Currency translation matters and trade inbalances can affect the local
>economy, so countries correctly attempt to control those things.
As they should.
>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order.
Why is that? What I am suggesting would not be regulated by any
external body. Countries would just state their terms and people would
either buy from them or not, and if the countries didn't like it that
people weren't buying from them, they could make their terms more
attractive.
> But
>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
So what did we used to do prior to the advent of Trade organisations?
Maria
R. Knauer
>>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order.
>Why is that?
The One World Currency would have to be administered by a One World
Sovereignty.
>So what did we used to do prior to the advent of Trade organisations?
Fought lots of wars.
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>>The mentality of the serf, not the warrior.
>
>The mentality of anything is better than that of the warrior.
I say, that is the motto of the Welsh Rugby Team, old sport.
--------
Somebody Call my Momma, I'm fixen to hurt somebody"
Andrew Brian Hickman
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:12:02 GMT, to...@the.top (Maria) wrote:
>>So what did we used to do prior to the advent of Trade organisations?
>Fought lots of wars.
As we have had a few wars since, what is your point?
Check the follow-up to line - Net Brat
Kingsley Matthews
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>In what way is an individual Englishman more "equal" than an
>individual Scotsman/Welshman?
>
them. Or, are you one who believes 'there is no such thing as society'?
>>>You have to deal with the *real* world - not the one you
>>>think it ought to have been.
>
>>I think the real world is being dealt with here.
>
>The real world is of an England, Wales and Scotland who have been
>joined together (politically) for a long time, and whose inhabitants
>have never elected majorities to say that they should not continue to
>be so joined.
>
>The real world is also that the vast majority of the people on this
>island chose to live on one part of it. And the real world is that it
>is therefore *that* part which sends the most representatives to their
>joint Parliament.
>
>It is you who claims that all that is somehow unfair. I am still
>waiting for a coherent reason as to *why* it is unfair.
>
Have you never heard the phrase, 'the tyranny of the majority'. Even
well-meaning majorities can tyrannise. That is what we are talking
about.
>>>>If we must have a monarchy - in any
>>>>form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
>>>>member state to rule in rotation?
>
>>>"They" do. They all just happen to be the one person:-)
>
>>And a very undemocratic person at that.
>
>Indeed. But you don't appear to like the effects of democracy wrt the
>head of government, so why are you any more likely to like those
>effects wrt a head of state?
>
I happen to like the present head of government, well most of the time,
however that doesn't matter because I will accept the decision of the
electorate, I did for 18 continuous years.
>>>(Perhaps that's why the monarch always refers to herself as "we":-)
>
>>>>The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
>>>>dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
>
>>>The peerage is not democratic.
>
>>I think we all know that.
>
>I thought we did. Mind you, seeing some of the arguments that a
>"well-defined minority" should be allowed a veto over the majority,
>I'm not so sure. After all, the aristocracy are a well-defined
>minority.
>
>
But, the aristocracy wish to rule the majority, other well-defined
minorities are not trying to do that, they merely want internal rule
within their own well-defined territories.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>
>Kingsley Matthews wrote in message ...
>>In article <70voib$g5t$1...@spitting-spider.aracnet.com>, James C. Woodard
>><gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>>>>>Await no longer, let's examine Kingsley's politics.
>
>>OK, Jim, you have made your point, you have a paranoid fear of
>>socialism.
>
>Not a paranoid fear but an utter conviction of the unviability and
>unfairness of sociallist political goals and a complete lack of respect of
>the dishonest manner in which they are usually "sold" to the electorate.
>
government. It is matter of values and ours are different.
I do not think that socialists have been particularly dishonest in
selling their goals to the electorate, and, here in Britain it is well
known that most political dishonesty of the past few years has come from
the Conservative Party, which is the main reason for their rejection by
the electorate.
>> Many people do, I'm sure you remember the McCarthy period in
>>the US. Would you really want to bring back those days?
>
>No, I don't wish to return to the days of yore, but that said McCarthy was
>completely outside all law and reason in his methods and absolutely correct
>in his allegation of the government of the United States being filled with
>closet communists and socialists. My main objection to those people being
>in the positions they were in is that if their politics had been known they
>would never have been accepted for those positions at that point in history.
>They therefore obtained those jobs under false pretenses. When accepting a
>position of a political nature one's political beliefs are a legitimate
>reason to refuse them the sought employment.
>
I'm glad to see you acknowledge my points made above re political
dishonesty.
>>
>>> A tip,
>>>>Jim, in politics, sometimes things are not what they seem.
>>>>
>>>>>4. What does this make Kingsley.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it makes Kingsley anything, however, seeing that two out
>>>>of the three comments are wrong, it says an awful lot about Jim!
>>>
>>>Yes, mainly that I have learned how Kinglsey debates.
>>>
>>At last, you have learnt I debate sensibly, or at least I try to, I tend
>>not to rubbish peoples opinions simply because they might have opinions
>>on other things too. If you would observe such honesty we might get
>>somewhere, but I won't hold my breath.
>
>No, Kingsley, I have learned that when you are caught spouting utter crap,
>you evade, ignore, and maintain that it's the absolute truth. I will
>observe honest debate right after you answer one question: When did England
>come into being? But I won't hold my breath.
If that is the only example of my uttering crap you can come up with,
then your argument must be pretty thin.
I have answered that question several times in response, but you still
seem to think I have not answered it. Let me try again. It was my
contention that England did not come into existence until the English
language was established, i.e. several hundred years after the conquest
by William the Bastard and his associated gang of pirates. thieves,
cutthroats and ne'er do wells, the descendants of whom form our current
ruling class. Some people, including yourself, disagreed with this.
The argument was going round in circles, so I stopped posting on that
particular thread.
Now that is has been explained yet again, I hope you will come to
realise that other people have legitimate opinions that do not
necessarily accord with you own views.
I have never met a socialist with such undemocratic opinions as
yourself.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>
>Maria wrote in message <3633a1db...@news.clara.net>...
>>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:27:40 GMT, r...@bluenoze.demon.co.uk (Rob)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most people wish for free trade between nations, the idea put forward
>>>recently and championed by Ian Geldard re-NAFTA has serious merit
>>>IMHO.
>>
>>organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
>>Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
>>trade freely does not have to join in....
>>
>God, Maria, don't be reasonable. That's far too simple, no jobs for
>bureaucrats in that method.
>Jim
>
>
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 02:19:51 +0000, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>>>majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
>>>and everywhere.
>
>>It is all about Westminster dictating. I would like a new union, a
>>European Union, we have more in common than we have differences, it is
>>the English who want to dominate,
>
>This is what its all about isn't it. This fantasy of yours (and all
>those others who desperately want to be seen as "victims", rather than
>inadequates) that the "English" want to "dominate".
>
reproducing some here, but there is far too much of it, I wouldn't know
where to start. I'm sure all readers could find evidence of their own.
>In pursuit of which, no claim is so outrageous that it is left unmade,
>no non sequitur so blatant that it is left unsaid. In which the
>definition of "democracy" is twisted and perverted so that it can
>encompass the concept of a small minority having the same say as a
>large majority, and in which a sense of proportion is so totally
>lacking that an integral (and voluntary) part of the UK is busy
>convincing itself that it is nothing more than a colony of a
>fictitious English Empire.
>
The answer to this point has been stated many times in this thread, you
still don't seem to get it. Honestly Marc, nobody is trying to
persecute the English.
>Reading some of the total distortions of reality made by a *few*
>nationalists (present company excepted) I really do have doubts as to
>their sanity. And yet they go unremarked and uncorrected by other,
>more balanced, nationalists.
>
I am not a nationalist, but I could be persuaded by some of your anti-
nationalist arguments, you just can not seem to grasp the legitimate
concerns of the Celtic peoples.
>And at the bottom of it all appears to be a hatred of the English. A
>conviction that the English are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to
>"dominate" the Scots - and that Englishmen all go to the polling
>station with the sole intention of voting for whichever party will
>most upset them.
>
There is very little hatred of the English among nationalists, there is
some, but it is only found on the fringes. I don't think anyone
believes in a conspiracy either. It is simply a matter of being
outvoted every time. I believe Northern Irish catholics had this
problem for a long time.
>>you won't dominate in Europe.
>
><snip>
>
>>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
>>so amused at your bleating.
>
>And this perhaps is one of the main attractions of Europe. It doesn't
>matter that it is less democratic than you will wish. That a single EU
>currency might be even more inappropriate to Scotland than a single UK
>currency is irrelevant.
>
Yes, in a united Europe no single nation or culture will dominate,
unlike the United Kingdom.
>The main point is that the English will "get what's coming to them".
>
I've only ever read those words from you.
>Isn't *that* what is really happening here? Not that the English want
>to dominate, but that *you* want to see the English dominated?
>
No.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 22:13:09 GMT, to...@the.top (Maria) wrote:
>
>>organisation that enforces free trade rules and regulations?
>>Why can't we simply trade freely? Any country that does not wish to
>>trade freely does not have to join in....
>
>economy, so countries correctly attempt to control those things.
>
>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>
--
Kingsley
R. Knauer
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
>>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>Would it really Bob? How do you know?
Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
A One World Govt would be the epitome of concentration of power, and
therefore the epitome of corruption.
Cliff Morrison
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> But, the aristocracy wish to rule the majority, other well-defined
> minorities are not trying to do that, they merely want internal rule
> within their own well-defined territories.
So now you've changed sides and are opposing
the EuroCentral Bank and its EuroState?
Cliff Morrison
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:24 +0000, Kingsley Matthews
> <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
> >>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
> >>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>
> >Would it really Bob? How do you know?
>
> Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
> A One World Govt would be the epitome of concentration of power, and
> therefore the epitome of corruption.
And so remote, so able to play divide-and-rule, so endowed with the powers
of patronage, and so shielded by layers of jobsworths below it, as to be
safely out of reach of any meaningful inhibition, reform or resistance....
Alan Hardie
Marc Living wrote in message <364968df...@news.clara.net>...
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 02:19:51 +0000, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>
>The main point is that the English will "get what's coming to them".
>
>Isn't *that* what is really happening here? Not that the English want
>to dominate, but that *you* want to see the English dominated?
>
>
No.
------------------------
Alan Hardie
(remove xspam from email address to reply)
Alan Hardie
R. Knauer wrote in message <3634e038...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:24 +0000, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
>>>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>>>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>
>>Would it really Bob? How do you know?
>
>Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
>A One World Govt would be the epitome of concentration of power, and
>therefore the epitome of corruption.
>
Assuming that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a
truism.
Kingsley Matthews
Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
Cliff, you really get some strange thoughts into your head.
--
Kingsley
Kingsley Matthews
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:24 +0000, Kingsley Matthews
><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
>>>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>>>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>
>>Would it really Bob? How do you know?
>
>Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
>A One World Govt would be the epitome of concentration of power, and
>therefore the epitome of corruption.
>
today is the US army.
If a world government was subject to democratic controls, checks &
balances etc, it would not necessarily be corrupt.
--
Kingsley
Cliff Morrison
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If a world government was subject to democratic controls, checks &
> balances etc, it would not necessarily be corrupt.
Since it seldom enough runs like that at country or even local authority
level, fat chance of it transpiring thus at global!
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <36456599...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.B
>OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>In what way is an individual Englishman more "equal" than an
>>individual Scotsman/Welshman?
>We are talking about the nations as a whole, not the in dividuals within
>them.
Yet we were talking about *democracy*. Nations do not exercise votes
in a democracy: individuals do.
Now perhaps you can explain why you believe that a Scotsman should get
the equivalent of 8 votes for each one exercised by an Englishman.
>Or, are you one who believes 'there is no such thing as society'?
I do not know of any society which gives the views of 6 million an
equal weight with the views of 40 million: well ... not one which
actually advocates it as being a good democratic ideal at any rate.
Do *you* know of any?
>>>>You have to deal with the *real* world - not the one you
>>>>think it ought to have been.
>>>I think the real world is being dealt with here.
>>The real world is of an England, Wales and Scotland who have been
>>joined together (politically) for a long time, and whose inhabitants
>>have never elected majorities to say that they should not continue to
>>be so joined.
>>The real world is also that the vast majority of the people on this
>>island chose to live on one part of it. And the real world is that it
>>is therefore *that* part which sends the most representatives to their
>>joint Parliament.
>>It is you who claims that all that is somehow unfair. I am still
>>waiting for a coherent reason as to *why* it is unfair.
>Have you never heard the phrase, 'the tyranny of the majority'.
I have indeed - although I wouldn't have expected you to be praying it
in aid. I certainly don't remember you getting upset when gun-owners
found ancient rights being stripped from them by the majority.
>Even
>well-meaning majorities can tyrannise. That is what we are talking
>about.
The fear of the "tyranny of the majority" is an argument for less
government all round and for securely held (individual) rights which
cannot easily be revoked by the majority.
It is not an argument for differential treatment of minorities. (Just
as it is not an argument for differential treatment of individuals.)
>>>>>If we must have a monarchy - in any
>>>>>form of union of equals would it not be normal for the monarchs of each
>>>>>member state to rule in rotation?
>>>>"They" do. They all just happen to be the one person:-)
>>>And a very undemocratic person at that.
>>Indeed. But you don't appear to like the effects of democracy wrt the
>>head of government, so why are you any more likely to like those
>>effects wrt a head of state?
>I happen to like the present head of government, well most of the time,
>however that doesn't matter because I will accept the decision of the
>electorate, I did for 18 continuous years.
Except that the *next* decision of the electorate will not affect you
in the same way that it will us. That will not stop you from sending
(more than) the requisite number of MPs to Westminster however - it
simply means that you are now in a position where you can send any old
Charlies down to Westminster, without fear of the consequences.
>>>>(Perhaps that's why the monarch always refers to herself as "we":-)
>>>>>The Peerage is generally known as the English Peerage and is largely
>>>>>dominated by the ancestors of the Normans. How democratic is that?
>>>>The peerage is not democratic.
>>>I think we all know that.
>>I thought we did. Mind you, seeing some of the arguments that a
>>"well-defined minority" should be allowed a veto over the majority,
>>I'm not so sure. After all, the aristocracy are a well-defined
>>minority.
>But, the aristocracy wish to rule the majority,
Not quite. The House of Lords always had to secure the agreement of
the Commons. What they *did* have however was a veto over the Commons.
Rather similar to the one which you would like Scotland to have wrt
England.
>other well-defined
>minorities are not trying to do that, they merely want internal rule
>within their own well-defined territories.
Yet retaining all the benefits of belonging to the UK - and
participating in the UK Parliament..
Marc Living
<king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>In article <364968df...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.B
>OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 02:19:51 +0000, m'learned friend Kingsley Matthews
>><king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>>He wishes to preserve the Union as he believes it is of benefit to the
>>>>majority of Britons, it is not about Westminster dictating here there
>>>>and everywhere.
>>>It is all about Westminster dictating. I would like a new union, a
>>>European Union, we have more in common than we have differences, it is
>>>the English who want to dominate,
>>This is what its all about isn't it. This fantasy of yours (and all
>>those others who desperately want to be seen as "victims", rather than
>>inadequates) that the "English" want to "dominate".
>Not a fantasy, but plenty of historical evidence. I did think of
>reproducing some here, but there is far too much of it, I wouldn't know
>where to start. I'm sure all readers could find evidence of their own.
It is a sign of a faltering argument if you have to reach back to
"your great-great-grandfather stuck his tongue out at my
great-great-grandfather" type " historical evidence".
Why not just leave ancient vendettas to the Corsicans, and post (say)
5 modern examples of how the "English" want to "dominate" the Scots
and Welsh.
And, whilst you are at it, you might like to explain what you mean by
the "English". Do you include those people who consider themselves
Scottish and Welsh, but happen to live in England? What of those who
were born in England, but of Scottish and/or Welsh parents? Or
grandparents?
Are they all similarly trying to "dominate"? Do you say that this
desire to "dominate" immediately grabs hold of people as soon as they
cross into England? Or what exactly?
And since I (like many other Englishmen) can claim a "full house" of
the nationalities of this island without going back more that two
generations, am I trying to "dominate" myself?
>>In pursuit of which, no claim is so outrageous that it is left unmade,
>>no non sequitur so blatant that it is left unsaid. In which the
>>definition of "democracy" is twisted and perverted so that it can
>>encompass the concept of a small minority having the same say as a
>>large majority, and in which a sense of proportion is so totally
>>lacking that an integral (and voluntary) part of the UK is busy
>>convincing itself that it is nothing more than a colony of a
>>fictitious English Empire.
>The answer to this point has been stated many times in this thread, you
>still don't seem to get it.
To which point do you refer?
The only one which has received an answer is the one about democracy -
in which it is asserted that individual members of a certain minority
should be treated differently from individual members of the majority
because ... erm ... it's a minority and it wouldn't be fair otherwise.
Honestly, if that is the best argument you can come up with, it's no
wonder you left this newsgroup so that you would only have to discuss
these rather bizarre leaps of logic with like-minded people.
>Honestly Marc, nobody is trying to
>persecute the English.
I'll take your word for it.
>>Reading some of the total distortions of reality made by a *few*
>>nationalists (present company excepted) I really do have doubts as to
>>their sanity. And yet they go unremarked and uncorrected by other,
>>more balanced, nationalists.
>I am not a nationalist, but I could be persuaded by some of your anti-
>nationalist arguments,
If forcing you to justify things you would rather take as read turns
you into a nationalist, then that is no concern of mine.
> you just can not seem to grasp the legitimate
>concerns of the Celtic peoples.
That is because I have not yet seen a single argument which even
begins to suggest that such concerns *are* legitimate. I can accept
that they are deeply held, but that doesn't make them legitimate.
If the concern is that there is too much governing going on in
Westminster, then *that* is a concern which is very legitimate (IMO).
The response to that though is to return members who believe in
minimalist government - not to ask for your own special "opt-out",
whilst continuing to send members who *do* believe quite strongly in
interventionist government.
>>And at the bottom of it all appears to be a hatred of the English. A
>>conviction that the English are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to
>>"dominate" the Scots - and that Englishmen all go to the polling
>>station with the sole intention of voting for whichever party will
>>most upset them.
>There is very little hatred of the English among nationalists, there is
>some, but it is only found on the fringes. I don't think anyone
>believes in a conspiracy either. It is simply a matter of being
>outvoted every time.
But "Scots" *aren't* outvoted every time. "They" don't even all vote
for the same party - so it is difficult to see *how* they can be
outvoted every time.
You might as well say (and with rather more justification) that
Liberal supporters are "outvoted every time".
>I believe Northern Irish catholics had this
>problem for a long time.
And how is this remotely comparable? They are people who do not wish
to remain part of the UK - Scotland is a part which *does*.
>>>you won't dominate in Europe.
>><snip>
>>>The loss of English sovereignty, the Celts had no sovereignty. We are
>>>so amused at your bleating.
>>And this perhaps is one of the main attractions of Europe. It doesn't
>>matter that it is less democratic than you will wish. That a single EU
>>currency might be even more inappropriate to Scotland than a single UK
>>currency is irrelevant.
>Yes, in a united Europe no single nation or culture will dominate,
>unlike the United Kingdom.
Early days yet.
Maria
Morrison) wrote:
>In article <3634e038...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, rckt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:44:24 +0000, Kingsley Matthews
>> <king...@kandam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>To have what you want we would have to have a One World Order. But
>> >>then that would entail a One World Government. Then the world would go
>> >>into a dark ages if that ever happened.
>>
>> >Would it really Bob? How do you know?
>>
>> Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>>
>> A One World Govt would be the epitome of concentration of power, and
>> therefore the epitome of corruption.
>
>And so remote, so able to play divide-and-rule, so endowed with the powers
>of patronage, and so shielded by layers of jobsworths below it, as to be
>safely out of reach of any meaningful inhibition, reform or resistance....
Yes, fine, if what I had suggested was a One World Order.
But it wasn't.
<sigh>
Maria