Scottish independence

McFly85

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

Agreed. If they have any interest in preserving the union and having it work in a way that doesn't automatically mean that whatever way England votes is what will happen then it's really the only course of action.

Of course they'd never do it, though.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

Not sure they have the imagination to federalise. As a matter of interest, presuming SC, NI and Wales are three, how many more regions would there be?
Considering the big variations in pop of the areas, would it need a Second House to have equal representation from all areas?

I think it is 9 in England, but a few smaller ones could be amalgamated. It works out at about 5 million for each region, if the smaller ones are joined.

No second house, unless the House of Lords is turned into a USA Senate type of house, where each region has a fixed representation. Say 12 regions, 9 English, + Ni, Wales and Scotland - each region gets 12 seats, elected by STV, giving a house of 144 seats. Let the Gov appoint, say 10 seats, and that gives 154, and the speaker is elected from that, meaning a 77 is needed to form a majority. I do not know what they would do, but there you go.

I had not thought of a second national chamber.

Water John

One chamber surely would need to reflect population or have I been watching the election in the US too much?
The bonus seats could be allocated to the more populous regions in your example.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

One chamber surely would need to reflect population or have I been watching the election in the US too much?
The bonus seats could be allocated to the more populous regions in your example.

The current HoL takes no account of population, so why would its replacement? The HoC is supposedly derived from population, but FPTP betrays some of that, and constituency size in not uniform.

The US Senate was deliberately set up not to take population into account to prevent majority-type bullying. The US senate is really directed at foreign policy and security, while the congress is in financial control. In the UK, it is the HoC that is in financial control, with the HoL not able to modify a 'money' bill.

Water John

Scotland would be about median pop among those regions. Wales would fare well. NI having the best representation of all in terms of numbers what ever about the quality and SF not taking their seats.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

those regions would still be in England and they would elect English MPs (taking in to consideration Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs that represent English constituencies of course), unless you were thinking of breaking up England in some way, or forcibly changing people's nationality.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

those regions would still be in England and they would elect English MPs (taking in to consideration Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs that represent English constituencies of course), unless you were thinking of breaking up England in some way, or forcibly changing people's nationality.

This is nothing to do with MPs or nationality. Nationality remains that of The UK of GB and NI with blue passports.

MPs remain as is and are elected as is.

The MLA is elected by the voters in their region, and would have exactly the same powers as members of the Scottish devolved parliament. They would have control over, say, the NHS which would be divided from NHS England into NHS [region], and so on.

MPs would deal with taxation as it applies to the nation, security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, etc.

I like the idea of the HoL being transformed into a Senate of equal number of elected members from each region. It would be better than the current setup of failed/retired politicians, chums and political donors, and hereditary toffs.

BlitzKrieg

In your proposal would London (Greater London) be a region all to itself? Essentially having the current mayor's office level up into a devolved body?

Just thinking if it was split England up into regions like South West, North East, North West etc You'd be saddling London with the South East and it would be a region that will either a) be dominated by London's politics or b) have mps clashing with London sensibility as the south east is the sort of area that the likes of Farage would run and possibly win so you'd be putting the UK's most multicultural metropoliton under the foot of potentially some of the most reactionary arsewipes in UK politics.

bob mcbob

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

Too little, too late.

ancapailldorcha

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

In your proposal would London (Greater London) be a region all to itself? Essentially having the current mayor's office level up into a devolved body?

Just thinking if it was split England up into regions like South West, North East, North West etc You'd be saddling London with the South East and it would be a region that will either a) be dominated by London's politics or b) have mps clashing with London sensibility as the south east is the sort of area that the likes of Farage would run and possibly win so you'd be putting the UK's most multicultural metropoliton under the foot of potentially some of the most reactionary arsewipes in UK politics.

I like this idea of federalising alongside the ancient duchy boundaries and population lines:

Lumen

The natural split for England is north-south along the Trent. Has always been so.

This is why the Tories have recently adopted a policy of "leveling up". It is a policy founded not on empathy or materialism but fear that the Union is the only thing holding England together.

ancapailldorcha

Lumen wrote: »

The natural split for England is north-south along the Trent. Has always been so.

This is why the Tories have recently adopted a policy of "leveling up". It is a policy founded not on empathy or materialism but fear that the Union is the only thing holding England together.

I'm going to slightly disagree. There are various regional identities in England which have been subsumed by the larger "British" identity. People from Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, East Midlands, West Midlands, Essex, Norfolk, Kent and so on would see themselves as being culturally distinct as much as the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. The difference is that these cultural identities have been forgotten about in the bigger picture as they were historically grouped into a collective "English" identity.

That's only my experience, mind but even a splitting of England into north and south would probably improve things.

A Dub in Glasgo

Just got an update about the court case last week

Update on Peoples Action on Section 30

I've been informed by counsel that the court will supply the judgement to the parties in #peoplesas30 ahead of public disclosure for the purpose of internal use. This will likely be at least 24 hours before it is made public.
This means several things. Firstly, I will be able to tell you that public disclosure is imminent and when to expect it, and secondly, if legal actions require to be taken, they will likely have already been initiated by the time everyone will see the judgement etc.
No word as of yet when Lady Carmichael's ruling will be forthcoming. But I will let you all know as soon as I find out.
As always, I hope you are all safe and well and will contact you as soon as I know more.

Sincerely

Martin Keatings

Lumen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm going to slightly disagree. There are various regional identities in England which have been subsumed by the larger "British" identity. People from Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, East Midlands, West Midlands, Essex, Norfolk, Kent and so on would see themselves as being culturally distinct as much as the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. The difference is that these cultural identities have been forgotten about in the bigger picture as they were historically grouped into a collective "English" identity.

That's only my experience, mind but even a splitting of England into north and south would probably improve things.

It's not my idea, I heard it on a podcast, from about 2:20

https://play.acast.com/s/the-bunker/special-england-sdividedsoul-nickcohentalkstojameshawes

I've become quite interested in this type of theory, of divisions running back centuries explaining even the most contemporary behaviour. It's the only way I can rationalise Brexit without just running around in circles shouting MORONS.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is nothing to do with MPs or nationality. Nationality remains that of The UK of GB and NI with blue passports.

MPs remain as is and are elected as is.

The MLA is elected by the voters in their region, and would have exactly the same powers as members of the Scottish devolved parliament. They would have control over, say, the NHS which would be divided from NHS England into NHS [region], and so on.

MPs would deal with taxation as it applies to the nation, security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, etc.

I like the idea of the HoL being transformed into a Senate of equal number of elected members from each region. It would be better than the current setup of failed/retired politicians, chums and political donors, and hereditary toffs.

and what would any of this do?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I certainly think there should be an English parliament with devolved powers, but I'm not sure what splitting up a country would achieve?

Should Scotland be split as well to give the Highlands and Islands their own government? maybe a devolved assembley for the Shetland, Orkney and Western Islands?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm going to slightly disagree. There are various regional identities in England which have been subsumed by the larger "British" identity. People from Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, East Midlands, West Midlands, Essex, Norfolk, Kent and so on would see themselves as being culturally distinct as much as the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. The difference is that these cultural identities have been forgotten about in the bigger picture as they were historically grouped into a collective "English" identity.

That's only my experience, mind but even a splitting of England into north and south would probably improve things.

you could easily apply that logic to every country on the planet. National identities are, to some extent, an identity forced on people by political borders.

breatheme

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm going to slightly disagree. There are various regional identities in England which have been subsumed by the larger "British" identity. People from Cornwall, Yorkshire, Lancashire, East Midlands, West Midlands, Essex, Norfolk, Kent and so on would see themselves as being culturally distinct as much as the Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. The difference is that these cultural identities have been forgotten about in the bigger picture as they were historically grouped into a collective "English" identity.

That's only my experience, mind but even a splitting of England into north and south would probably improve things.

Whatever the split, London needs to have its own legislature.

Water John

As a matter of interest Germany and France having 16 and 18 respectively. The Regions certainly have real power in Germany.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

and what would any of this do?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I certainly think there should be an English parliament with devolved powers, but I'm not sure what splitting up a country would achieve?

Should Scotland be split as well to give the Highlands and Islands their own government? maybe a devolved assembley for the Shetland, Orkney and Western Islands?

The point is to bring real regionalisation. The EU call subsidiarity, where decisions are made at the lowest level. Decisions that make sense in Barnsley may not make sense for Exeter or Ipswich.

Each region would have a target population of 5 million - which is the same as Scotland, but well over twice that of NI.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I like this idea of federalising alongside the ancient duchy boundaries and population lines:

I would amalgamate Cornwall and Dumnonia called Dumnonia, and also Essex and East Anglia -called Anglia. Al four regions are low in population, and even amalgamated are still low.

Lumen

btw, in case anyone thinks that UK bureaucratic geography is currently simple, here's my handy reference chart.

I won't embed it for fear of inducing seizures. :pac:

https://i.postimg.cc/GbN7ZH7G/image.png

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Is the Scottish Head of State not the Queen?

She is also head of state of Barbados, for now.

But she is not the head of the Church of Scotland. Because it's a different country with different laws and customs.

She is only head of state of the UK because Parliament continues to allow it.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

She is also head of state of Barbados, for now.

But she is not the head of the Church of Scotland. Because it's a different country with different laws and customs.

She is only head of state of the UK because Parliament continues to allow it.

She remains head of state in Scotland because she has a Balmoral Right to remain so.

Water John

Terrible of Littlejohn to be calling an old lady those names.

dogbert27

Sam Russell wrote: »

She remains head of state in Scotland because she has a Balmoral Right to remain so.

She privately owns Balmoral, it's not part of the crown estate.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

Terrible of Littlejohn to be calling an old lady those names.

Like Trump, there's a perversion about how we must conduct ourselves civilly, when discussing those who display almost none in return. Littlejohn's "prose" is a disgrace to journalism, but of course if you read the comments underneath his fans lap it up. Plus it's always amusing how easily rattled some are by a demonstrative, confident female leader.

Charles Babbage

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I like this idea of federalising alongside the ancient duchy boundaries and population lines:

It seems to ignore that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not in the UK and the latter has several administrations and uses a loyalist flag for NI. But perhaps some of the rest is OK.

Water John

pixelburp wrote: »

Like Trump, there's a perversion about how we must conduct ourselves civilly, when discussing those who display almost none in return. Littlejohn's "prose" is a disgrace to journalism, but of course if you read the comments underneath his fans lap it up. Plus it's always amusing how easily rattled some are by a demonstrative, confident female leader.

And they are subjugated so easily by a right wing woman, like Thatcher.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Like Trump, there's a perversion about how we must conduct ourselves civilly, when discussing those who display almost none in return. Littlejohn's "prose" is a disgrace to journalism, but of course if you read the comments underneath his fans lap it up. Plus it's always amusing how easily rattled some are by a demonstrative, confident female leader.

In fairness to little Johnny, he treats pretty much everyone with equal amounts of contempt.

Edit. That awesome. Spellcheck changes littlejohn to little Johnny

Tyrone212

pixelburp wrote: »

Like Trump, there's a perversion about how we must conduct ourselves civilly, when discussing those who display almost none in return. Littlejohn's "prose" is a disgrace to journalism, but of course if you read the comments underneath his fans lap it up. Plus it's always amusing how easily rattled some are by a demonstrative, confident female leader.

Years ago I used to reply under ridiculous comment's on the mail. I would always stick to the rules. Almost every time it would be deleted because so many would report the comment. Which I found hilarious as the types reporting me were the ones always crying about free speech snowflakes etc. They could dish it out but could never handle the truth. I wouldn't even give that website a click nowadays.