England Stirs...
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
Re: England Stirs...
I think Billy Connolly might have helped in this...I am never gonna stand for an anthem (which is meant to be Scottish as well) which has the lyrics
It was 1967, and England were playing Scotland. Before such matches, supporters of both sides had traditionally sung God Save The Queen. This time, however, to the amazement and embarrassment of the organisers, when English supporters started singing the National Anthem, many Scots booed.
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush
it was also a Scot that betrayed Scotland..James the VI of Scotland..also James the I.......if you want me to elaborate on this I will..It was a Scot, James Thomson, who wrote Rule Brittannia in 1740.
what the fuck!.......this guy is clearly dillusional......I dont know where he gets his facts from but I would sure like to knowToday, Scotland's population numbers are sustained only by the influx of English retirement families. Glasgow languishes. The English subsidy of Scotland ? to the tune of about ?1,000 a year apiece ? only feeds Scots' self-pity.
most of us dont hate the English people...we hate getting ruled by an English governmentThey embraced Mel Gibson's idiotic movie Braveheart, which persuaded many younger Scots that they could rebuild a culture out of hating the English.
sorry to the 'British' here but I am Scottish.......not BritishA 1996 survey found that 64 per cent of Scots and 41 per cent of Welsh people thought of themselves as Scottish and Welsh rather than British; yet only 25 per cent of the English felt explicitly English.
is that a bad thing that you have your own identity?Here in England, I think we shall hear much more of this country's name. As Jeremy Paxman suggested, we are rediscovering an English identity, largely forced upon by us by the behaviour of our Scottish neighbours.
bull fucking shit!...the English government shut down most of our industries.....mining, shipbuilding, our oil industry....okai the oil industry wasnt shut down but the Scots dont benefit from it......we could have managed quite easily without the EnglishScots, in particular, recognised that sharing Britain's worldwide dominion gave them a stake in something much bigger than they could ever have aspired to on their own.
not the individual English civillain but certainly because of the government we have sufferedIn truth, it has not been the fault of the English that Wales and Scotland have suffered so much.
Last edited by schuette on Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is amazing how these sorts of resentments keep rearing up.
Over on Counterparts, I created a thread to discuss the creation of a federal parliament in the UK. I was surprised at the level of anger that was expressed concerning the position of the Scottish, Welsh and NI assemblies and the absense of a similar body for England.
It does strike me as unbalanced that Scottish MPs etc. can vote in Westminster on matters exclusively dealing with England, but the opposite is not permitted.
My proposed solution was to designate Westminster a federal parliament, and create a smaller assembly that would deal exclusively with England. (It would meet in oxford or wherever).
Yes, it is another layer of government. But in the end the current system fails to address local autonomy in England itself.
An even more radical proposal would be to break England into smaller regional units with divolved parliaments. For example the six counties of the Southwest would have a local authority, as would Yorkshire, the northwest, and the Midlands. In all, the UK would become a federation of perhaps eight 'provinces.' The old Heptarchy could be a rough guide to these divisions.
The local assemblies would have limited powers, but could address local concerns such as education, roads, public welfare etc. The Westminster parliament would deal with truly national (and international) matters, establishing the budget etc.
It isn't a perfect solution, but often local concerns of outlying areas do not hold the attention of London. Having a local authority that deals exclusively with such matters would be of benefit.
Over on Counterparts, I created a thread to discuss the creation of a federal parliament in the UK. I was surprised at the level of anger that was expressed concerning the position of the Scottish, Welsh and NI assemblies and the absense of a similar body for England.
It does strike me as unbalanced that Scottish MPs etc. can vote in Westminster on matters exclusively dealing with England, but the opposite is not permitted.
My proposed solution was to designate Westminster a federal parliament, and create a smaller assembly that would deal exclusively with England. (It would meet in oxford or wherever).
Yes, it is another layer of government. But in the end the current system fails to address local autonomy in England itself.
An even more radical proposal would be to break England into smaller regional units with divolved parliaments. For example the six counties of the Southwest would have a local authority, as would Yorkshire, the northwest, and the Midlands. In all, the UK would become a federation of perhaps eight 'provinces.' The old Heptarchy could be a rough guide to these divisions.
The local assemblies would have limited powers, but could address local concerns such as education, roads, public welfare etc. The Westminster parliament would deal with truly national (and international) matters, establishing the budget etc.
It isn't a perfect solution, but often local concerns of outlying areas do not hold the attention of London. Having a local authority that deals exclusively with such matters would be of benefit.
Nowhere Toronto, nowhere to hide
-
Devil's Advocate
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:42 pm
- Location: Pembs, Wales, UK
- Contact:
-
Devil's Advocate
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:42 pm
- Location: Pembs, Wales, UK
- Contact:
Something along those lines, although it isn't as extensive.ElfDude wrote:Are we talking about a proposal giving England something similar to the "states' rights" being seperate from the "federal rights" in the U.S.?
Currently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have "home rule" devolved parliaments/assemblies (devolved meaning that certain powers have been delegated from the Westminster Parliament to these local assemblies.)
England does not have its own parliament, but is governed instead directly by the national parliament -- which also contains members from the three other countries of the UK.
This situation raises the West Lothian Question.
One stop-gap measure would be to recuse non-English MPs from voting on matters strictly dealing with England. But I could see this being unworkable in the case of confidence votes and when cabinet ministers are from outside England. It's a pickle.
Nowhere Toronto, nowhere to hide
We seem to have the most trouble with where to draw the lines for local government jurisdiction. For example, the county I live in is so speadout and it has such a varitey of issues that might be better handled by breaking it into smaller counties. Then again, how small do we want a county and how many would really be best?
We really can't break up our area by nationality that well.
We really can't break up our area by nationality that well.
Onward and Upward!