News: SNP Result and Winning Speach

Originally Posted by cassie:
Yes, I do believe that the power groups in all three parties have the same agenda, and I agree largely with what you say!

I also believe that the common factor here is Scottish. THEY largely influence if not entirely control the three main Brit parties, which have aggregate membership of less than 1% of voters but account for 95% of MPs. The parties are relaxed about who votes [or how often], but rigidly control their candidates. Mention of England is avoided as much as possible because it is part of the plan to eliminate England as a national entity.

Your mention of Bilderberg brings one to the 'globalised' economy and that secretive group's unseen, unaccountable influence in that context. The view that we should think in 'global' terms about international economics emphasises the huge hypocrisy of treating the much greater global numbers of immigrant stock in England as 'minorities' and the English as the 'majority' in their own land and undermining English society! This process is underpinned by the Race [Ethnicity & Nationality] Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In 1997, referendums were held in Scotland and Wales which excluded the 85% of the UK's voters in England, despite the relevant proposals being intended to effect significant changes to the UK's constitution. What kind of 'united kingdom' excludes the vast majority of its voters from the processes resulting in significant constitutional changes? Whatever it is, it is neither united nor democratic!

Did all those supposedly very clever and intelligent people exercising power in 1997 and since to bring about these changes know what they were doing? Were they aware that they were not treating the British state as a unified whole, but as a number of components consciously being treated differently? Are we to believe that they had no idea of what would be the consequences of their actions?

Finally, is there any evidence that either the Conservative or the Lib Dem parties are seriously considering measures which will put England on a similar footing to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales ie an England Parliament with devolved powers, ring fenced funding and its own executive? Many here are expressing pleasure at the result in Scotland, but I have my reservations. Beware of the law of unintended consequences!

_______________________________

Thanks very much for the reply cassie.

If you don't mind I'm very very interested to know more about what you said.
Forgive me but I seem to know more about U.S and global policy than that of my own country. :-)

Can you explain for me in more detail what you mean when you say:

Originally Posted by cassie:
I also believe that the common factor here is Scottish. THEY largely influence if not entirely control the three main Brit parties, which have aggregate membership of less than 1% of voters but account for 95% of MPs. The parties are relaxed about who votes [or how often], but rigidly control their candidates. Mention of England is avoided as much as possible because it is part of the plan to eliminate England as a national entity.

I am confused whether the figures you mention relate to the HoC or Scottish parliament.

Originally Posted by cassie:
Your mention of Bilderberg brings one to the 'globalised' economy and that secretive group's unseen, unaccountable influence in that context. The view that we should think in 'global' terms about international economics emphasises the huge hypocrisy of treating the much greater global numbers of immigrant stock in England as 'minorities' and the English as the 'majority' in their own land and undermining English society! This process is underpinned by the Race [Ethnicity & Nationality] Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

I will look into those acts you mentioned, but again if you can help me out ?
What do you mean "treating the much greater global numbers of immigrant stock in England as 'minorities' and the English as the 'majority' in their own land" ?

Originally Posted by cassie:
Finally, is there any evidence that either the Conservative or the Lib Dem parties are seriously considering measures which will put England on a similar footing to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales ie an England Parliament with devolved powers, ring fenced funding and its own executive? Many here are expressing pleasure at the result in Scotland, but I have my reservations. Beware of the law of unintended consequences!

Surely the British parliament answers to the EU so there is no chance of them allowing an English parliament ?
Given the above, I've always been suprised that Scotland/NI and Wales have their own parliaments/assemblies so how dis it come about and why ?
And (why) are Scottish Mp's voting on legislation in the HoC ?

Forgive my embarrassing lack of knowledge on this subject cassie, but if you can help me out understanding more then I'd really appreciate it and you seem to be very well informed on the subject, and it seems there is a lot more to the subject of allowing Scotland/Wales etc have their own power ?

Sorry so so many questions but many thanks.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Thanks very much for the reply cassie.

If you don't mind I'm very very interested to know more about what you said.
Forgive me but I seem to know more about U.S and global policy than that of my own country. :-)

Can you explain for me in more detail what you mean when you say:

Originally Posted by :
I also believe that the common factor here is Scottish. THEY largely influence if not entirely control the three main Brit parties, which have aggregate membership of less than 1% of voters but account for 95% of MPs. The parties are relaxed about who votes [or how often], but rigidly control their candidates. Mention of England is avoided as much as possible because it is part of the plan to eliminate England as a national entity.

The population of Scotland is around 5 million and accounts for some 8% of the UK's population of over 60 million and, by reason of immigration in England, that 8% is decreasing. The population of England is over 50 million which accounts for almost 85% of the UK's population and, by reason of over 95% of immigration being to England, that 85% is increasing. Consider the hugely disproportionate presence of Scots in parliament, local government, the trade unions, banks, commerce, national newspapers and, of course the broadcasters, most notably the BBC! Unless you believe that Scots are inherently superior to the English, there must be longstanding, widespread discrimination against the English being practised . . . unless you can identify another, convincing explanation.

If you want other evidence of how representation can be and is manipulated, just look at BBC TV and listen to BBC radio. You would be forgiven for thinking that the population of England is largely black and brown. Similarly, it would be difficult to gain a good idea of what the predominantly white English population actually sounds like. The indigenous,white English community is being rendered largely invisible.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I am confused whether the figures you mention relate to the HoC or Scottish parliament.

At the end of the 2005 General Election, the results were:
Labour 355
Conservative 197
Liberal Dems 62
TOTAL = 614 = 95% of 645 the total number of HoC MPs.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
I will look into those acts you mentioned, but again if you can help me out ?
What do you mean "treating the much greater global numbers of immigrant stock in England as 'minorities' and the English as the 'majority' in their own land" ?

The two Acts of Parliament which have done much to damage England and the English community are the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Human Rights Act 1998. The 1976 Act extended 'racial discrimination' to include ethnicity and nationality. This means that 'minorities in England - whether they be Scots, Welsh, Irish, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Chinese, Somali whatever [bear in mind these are all nationalities!] - can claim equality with the English! Moreover, they can have an equal right to their cultures and cultural practices which they practice often at the expense of those of the English! Under this approach, we've had the Notting Hill Carnival imposed on us and, increasingly, alien festivals such as divali.

When you consider that there are around 40 million English people, 145 million Bangladeshis, 165 million Pakistanis, 1,100 million Indians, 1,500 million Chinese, approx 800 million Africans etc etc, just which is the true minority, and why should we allow our society to be extinguished in our own land?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Surely the British parliament answers to the EU so there is no chance of them allowing an English parliament?

The British Parliament had power to devolve powers to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. So I am not aware of any legal impediment to treating England similarly.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Given the above, I've always been surprised that Scotland/NI and Wales have their own parliaments/assemblies so how did it come about and why?

There are many answers to this. My opinion is that Scotland has never fully integrated with Great Britain. It retained its own legal system, bank, bank notes and Education system. Generally, they have been more nationalistic than the English and have been more hostile to the English than those in authority would have the general population in England realise. Via the trade unions and the Labour Party, Scots have managed to acquire overall power which they abused by embarking on a political procedure to create more self government for Scotland which they partially disguised by following a similar process for Wales. However, the Assembly in Wales was not given the same degree of devolved power. The voters in England were encouraged to believe that this was 'Scottish business' and 'Welsh business' as the case may be! Remember, this was effected in 1997-98 when the Labour Government was new and enjoyed a large measure of goodwill!

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
And (why) are Scottish MPs voting on legislation in the HoC ?

Because the unfair, biassed idiots responsible for creating this anomalous constitutional situation are largely Scots. Similarly, David Cameron another Scot, seems unlikely to remedy the situation if he ever gains power and, whether or not he realises it, he will end up being just as detested as both Blair and Brown have become!

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Forgive my embarrassing lack of knowledge on this subject cassie, but if you can help me out understanding more then I'd really appreciate it and you seem to be very well informed on the subject, and it seems there is a lot more to the subject of allowing Scotland/Wales etc have their own power ?

Sorry so so many questions but many thanks.

You don't have to apologise to me, I usually ask questions of others who post here to test the extent of their knowledge [or otherwise] . . . as david H will testify! [He usually ducks my questions and refers me elsewhere!]

Having said that, I can only give you my take and others here may well step in to correct or to add to my 'facts'! :-)

______________________________

[Rep]

cassie,

Thanks ever so much for the info.

Yes I see your points, thankyou.

I suppose the proportion of Mp's should be proportional to the voters they represent and I'm still not sure why scottish Mp's should be allowed to vote on English policy when they have their own government. (is that right ?).

Would/do scottish Mp's support the main political parties push for a europhile Britain ?

Being cynical I wouldn't be suprised if there was a lot of "deal-making" that goes on in return for favours to the Scots, but then again, I'm still confused as to why Scottish Mp's are in the HoC and whether Scotland is independent of the HoC (and EU) or not, that I need to understand that first. Can you help me again ? :-) :-)

By the way, which party do you support (if you don't mind me asking) ?

Thansk again ! :-)

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Surely the British parliament answers to the EU so there is no chance of them allowing an English parliament ?
Given the above, I've always been suprised that Scotland/NI and Wales have .

I have my doubts about this too, as England is not one of their Euro regions. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are of course.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
I have my doubts about this too, as England is not one of their Euro regions. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are of course.

This is an argument which can be turned on its head: ie because the other 'devolved bodies' have been created, the power exists to devolve powers to England.

Indeed, in all the excuses I've heard for not creating an English Parliament - costs, extra layer of politicians, break-up of the UK etc - I've yet to hear the admission that Westminster simply does not have the power!

_________________________________

[Rep]

I believe that England,after holding an IN/OUT Referendum on the EU could declare itself Independent of it if the OUT VOTE won the day.(A UDI,Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the EU and NI,Wales and Scotland as well)After all,Scotland is going down the same rout with England isn't it by going Independent they will be declaring a Scottish UDI against England.

The Labour Party in Westminster took up its Governmental place after winning the GE on the 02 May 1997.

Three months later,on the 18 September 1997 the Welsh Assembly was formed.

Seven months after that on the 10 April 1998 the NI Assembly was formed.

Thirteen months after that in May 1999 the Scottish Parliament was formed.

So,within two years of the Labour Government being formed they had managed the above,quite a feat,but a deliberate one which had obviously been planned long before Labour took over UK from the Tory's.

A premeditated and much planned dismantling of the UK, by the supposed Party of the People,.....but for who, and for what reason?

The same analogy should be looked at when examining the UK and its entry and continuation in the European Union by the Conservative and Unionist Party shouldn't it?

The people of the UK have been constantly cheated,regardless of which country you may come from,its true,Manifestos are lies and political misinformation for the masses.

We need and must,change this disgusting situation at the earliest opportunity in my opinion.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
cassie,

Thanks ever so much for the info.

Yes I see your points, thank you.

(1) I suppose the proportion of MPs should be proportional to the voters they represent and I'm still not sure why scottish MPs should be allowed to vote on English policy when they have their own government. (is that right ?).

(2) Would/do scottish MPs support the main political parties push for a europhile Britain ?

(3) Being cynical I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of "deal-making" that goes on in return for favours to the Scots, but then again, I'm still confused as to why Scottish Mp's are in the HoC and whether Scotland is independent of the HoC (and EU) or not, that I need to understand that first. Can you help me again ? :-) :-)

(4) By the way, which party do you support (if you don't mind me asking) ?

Thanks again ! :-)

(1) You need to distinguish between MSPs who sit in the Scottish Parliament, and MPs who sit in the Commons by reason of the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1998. The number of MPs representing constituencies in Scotland will be grudgingly reduced over ten years late in 2010. The Scottish Parliament may only deal with devolved powers, other powers being 'reserved' to the British Parliament.

Without differentiation, MPs are able to vote on any matter brought before the British Parliament. The argument advanced for this is that all MPs must have equal status. In fact this became untrue in 1998 when non-England MPs could continue to vote on matters affecting England, but neither they nor England's MPs could any longer vote on the same matters where they had been devolved to Scotland etc.

(2) As far as I am aware, all MPs elected in Scotland are either Labour, SNP, Lib Dem or Conservative MPs. Therefore, I would say that political representation is pro-EU. [The Euro is a currency. Therefore, it is more accurate to say 'EU-phile'.] Incidentally, by reason of being EU Regions, both Scotland and Wales have direct contact with the EU which England does not have!

(3) I hope my earlier explanations will have cleared this up.

(4) I am not a member of any political party now for a number of reasons, although I support the objective of obtaining a separate parliament & executive for England.

I trust that these responses will provide some clarification.

As a matter of interest, where are you presently domiciled?

_______________________

[Rep]

Originally Posted by cassie:
There are many answers to this. My opinion is that Scotland has never fully integrated with Great Britain. It retained its own legal system, bank, bank notes and Education system.

I agree with much of what you have said Cassie, but I would like to ask you about this part in particular.

Bear in mind that the above articles were mostly dealt with at the treaty of union in 1707, what do you mean by not fully integrated with Great Britain? No new legal system, banks or monetary system were created. Would a full integration with Britain in this case (at 1707) mean that the Scots would have to have adopted the English banking system, legal system and currency, thereby destroying their own historic instutions?

If this is what you mean (and correct me if I am wrong), then it could hardly be called an integration, but rather a subsumation.

If brand new legal systems, banking systems, education systems and monetary systems had been created then this might be a different story.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I agree with much of what you have said Cassie, but I would like to ask you about this part in particular.

Bear in mind that the above articles were mostly dealt with at the treaty of union in 1707, what do you mean by not fully integrated with Great Britain? No new legal system, banks or monetary system were created. Would a full integration with Britain in this case (at 1707) mean that the Scots would have to have adopted the English banking system, legal system and currency, thereby destroying their own historic institutions?

If this is what you mean (and correct me if I am wrong), then it could hardly be called an integration, but rather a subsumation.

If brand new legal systems, banking systems, education systems and monetary systems had been created then this might be a different story.

Yes, you make a valid point! These matters were not expressly provided for in either 1707 or 1801, although the British Parliament was legally empowered to make new arrangements.

I believe it would be unthinking prejudice to assert that the 'English versions' were/are the better. In less volatile times, it should have been possible to pick the better features from both systems and with them create 'brand new' British systems.

Without undertaking detailed historical analysis, it does seem to me that the hugely disproportionate Scottish presence and representation in British [perforce this now often English] affairs is post war, more precisely, since the 1960s. If this is true, responsibility for the failure to attend to these matters would appear to fall in large measure on English shoulders!

Had action been taken to create 'British systems' then, as you rightly say, this might be a different story. Instead, discontent accumulated in Scotland and the populist Blair has taken matters in the opposite direction in one fell swoop and seriously holed the Union below the waterline. History will want to consider whether he realised what he was doing at the time or was it yet another operation of the rule of unintended consequences!

As Woy Jenkins once opined, Blair has a third rate intellect and his expedient policies were (are) always geared for the present, with any gaps to be quickly papered over! Frankly, I doubt whether he'll achieve anything significant in his present 'Middle East' envoy role other than to buy time!

_______________________________

[Rep]