Majority back Scottish independence

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:11 pm

First topic message reminder :

Exactly what I’ve been predicting for a long time. I said that if the Tories, so hated in Scotland that they have only one MP, came to power at Westminster again, the Scots would decide that they’d rather go it alone. Apparently, Scottish independence now has majority backing north of the border and in the UK as a whole, according to a new poll.

Research by ComRes for ‘The Independent on Sunday’ and ‘The Sunday Mirror’ found that support for the move had risen sharply over recent months. The results are a boost for First Minister Alex Salmond as his Scottish National Party prepares to hold its autumn conference in Inverness.

In the UK overall, 39% of those surveyed agreed that Scotland should be an independent country - an increase of six points since May. The number disagreeing with the statement had fallen four points to 38%.
In Scotland, the proportion supporting independence was up 11 points over the period at 49%. Some 37% disagreed - down by nine points.

The SNP, which won an unprecedented overall majority in May elections, has promised to hold a referendum on independence towards the end of its five-year term.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/majority-back-scottish-independence-193447501.html

by whitbyforklift Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:32 pm

Just like to endorse what Ivan as Just said.

by ROB Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:25 am

astradt1 wrote:
Roc wrote
I can never remember his name, but the would-be king who abdicated in the 1930s was a Nazi sympathizer and his wife, not an Anglican, supposedly the reason he abdicated, may have been less than “pure” in more than one way.

I saw something on either The History Channel or The Military Channel which suggested that British intelligence kept an eye on both during WWII.
Roc, Edward VII was King, although did not have a coronation and was not as you put it a 'would-be' king........

Between “would-be king” and “un-coronated king” I am unable to distinguish. As the Ethiopian prime minister to Candace Queen of Ethiopia said circa 33 AD, “How can I know except someone teach me?”

Though your knowledge has been offered begrudgingly, your knowledge has nonetheless been offered, and s a student of history in search of knowledge, I thank you.

astradt1 wrote:
The woman he married was firstly an American and secondly a Divorcee, it was the fact that she was divorced which caused the abdication....

The woman he married, to my remembrance, was also not Anglican. Does being an American automatically disqualify a person?

astradt1 wrote:
Yes they did have sympathy with the Nazi cause hence they were sent off to the Bahamas as Governor.......

Ah, isolate them in paradise.

by ROB Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:43 am

Ivan wrote:
You're talking about Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. Ostensibly, Edward abdicated after just a few months as king in 1936 because he intended to marry a divorced woman. A pity that the same doesn't apply to Prince Charles, so that we could be spared from having that gormless idiot as our unelected hereditary Head of State one day.

However brilliant, however popular a British citizen might be, he or she can never rise to be Head of State. That role is reserved for members of the Windsor family, regardless of how useless they are. George III was insane, but he was still our Head of State for sixty years.

According to the story I saw, British intelligence may have known something even then about Edward’s sympathies. And the info about Simpson was very interesting. If I can find it on the Internet, I’ll post a link to he program.

It appears that y’all lucked out with Elizabeth II, but Charles as Head of State would be an embarrassment even to me. In certain West African (pre-British/French colonization) nations, the offices of chief were not hereditary; when the old chief died or retired, the best man was selected to replace him.

by jackthelad Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:42 am

Shirina says,
I could never do with a head of state that achieved the position through an accident of birth. This leads to a decidedly "one-sidedness" when it comes to politics since a single royal family can groom the heir to be very similar to each other. That isn't even mentioning the genetic disorders that can affect an entire dynasty. It just wouldn't do to have an insane king sitting on the throne, or one riddled with Alzheimers, and God forbid if an heir ever turned out to be a sociopath or a psychopath - and that HAS happened before.

Well our head of state unlike Presidents are not involved in politics, does have the power to remove Prime Ministers though who abusing there power. When a goverment is elected they hand over a list of policies they plan to carry out to the Queen or King, who reads them out at the opening of the new parliament. Says they are carrying them out on his/her behalf, i suppose he or she would have discussed them before hand, doubt they would put their signiture toanything they would not approve off.
Now has far as being insane as someone suggested, the British head of state is in no position to carry out attrocities like presidents, dictators and other types of despots. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others who have slaughtered millions of their own countrymen, were classed as sane but where madmen, where elected in the first place by the very same people they had slaughtered.
You keep your Presidents, we will keep our kings and Queens, in the first place going back to the begining they where chosen by the people. Then they ruled with advisers, no government and houses of parliament. That changed after the civil war, people wanted more say, we had a short spell without a king. We brought the king back, power is not so absolute now has it was in the old days before the civil war. The present system suits everyone, we have aqueen who can't lop off someones head like they use to do, and a government that can't get too big for their boots.
I wonder if the Bushes have ever been certified, i thought the father and son where a couple of crack pots.

by witchfinder Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:05 pm

We have had this argument a few times

No democracy is perfect, in the UK and Canada no one ever swears alliegence to a politician, or to someone representing a political party, but on the other hand we do not elect our head of state.

In nations like the United States the head of state is elected, which certainly seems much more democratic, but what are the limitations of the president of the United States, what are the limitations of the Primeminister of the United Kingdom or Canada. ?

There is a group of elders in Canada, Britain and other nations called "The Privy Council", they are usualy older, wiser men and women from all political parties and with usualy many years of experience in the lower and upper houses in each nations Parliament.

The Privy Council are a link between Crown and government, they advise on constitutional matters, but their most important role is not widely known.

The Crown does have the power to dismiss primeministers, but only if those primeministers act ilegaly, unconstitutionaly or are found to be corrupt or unlawfull, in such cases the Privy Council will advise the sovereign - the sovereign then decides whether a primeminister or a government should be dismissed.

This has happened only once in the reign of Elizabeth II - in Australia in 1975 the Primeminister was dismissed on the advice of the Federal Executive Council of Australia ( equivelant to the Privy Councils of Canada and the United Kingdom ).

Yes - the monarch is not elected, but I believe that constitutional and democratic safeguards are better secured in the UK than in any presidential democracy - "The Crown" is the people, protects the people and is above politics.

by ROB Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:31 am

witchfinder wrote:
in the UK and Canada no one ever swears alliegence to a politician, or to someone representing a political party

In the United States, if one were to swear allegiance to a politician, to a political party, or to someone representing a political part, and if such an oath were acted upon, it would border on or be treason.

We swear, or pledge, allegiance “to the flag of the United States if America, and to the republic for which it stands…” In other words, we swear allegiance to the representative democracy We the People instituted by ordaining and establishing “this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Moreover, every federal officer, from the President, Senators and Representatives, Supreme Court Judges all the ay down to the part time Sunday sweeper in the federally-owned junkyard in Kalamazoo, and every state officer, from the Governor, state legislators, highest court justices, down to the sewer cleaner third class working for Cot and Shoot, Texas, swears or affirms an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

We are a nation which is established under the law and wherein all persons are under the law, the supreme law being the Constitution of the United States of America. All schoolchildren were once taught that truth; now, with progressive education, not so much, but many sovereign state governments are now correcting this decades long oversight under the onslaught of immigrants, primarily immigrants from south of the border (God bless Canada) who come over here with no intention of learning our history, joining our political culture (the idea that is America), or learning any parts of the our language.

witchfinder wrote:
what are the limitations of the president of the United States

Numerous limitations, so numerous, in fact, that it’s easier to state what he/she can do.

The President can sign bills sent to him by Congress, at which time the bills either become law immediately or are set to become law within the time frames set by the bills. The President can veto bills sent to him by Congress, which prevents those bills vetoed from becoming law unless Congress overrides the veto by two thirds vote of each house meeting separately. The President is the Chief Executive Officer, so he/she implements laws enacted by Congress in such a manner as the laws are interpreted by federal courts. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, an in time of war, the Coast Guard. The President can propose treaties to the Senate, which, if ratified by the Senate, become law in the United States, effectively as part of the Constitution.

Off hand, I can’t think of any other specific powers. The President has absolutely no judicial powers, and the only legislative power he/she has is to sign or veto bills.

The President is considered the Chief Diplomat, but whether he/she is in fact kinda sorta depends on who is President. George W. Bush wasn’t nobody’s Chief Diplomat; thank God for General Powell and Dr. Rice. Barack Hussein Obama is definitely the Chief Diplomat.

by Shirina Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:16 am

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others who have slaughtered millions of their own countrymen, were classed as sane but where madmen, where elected in the first place by the very same people they had slaughtered.

This is why we do not have a coalition government and why we opt for a two party system. If you have more than two parties running for president, it is possible - even likely - that an elected president will not have the legitimacy of a majority vote. If a president is elected with only 35% of the votes, then he has not been given a true mandate to rule. That is precisely what happened with Adolf Hitler, who was "elected" with only 36% of the vote - the winner, Hindenburg, only won with 49% of the vote, so even he did not have an overall mandate. However, I put "elected" in quotes because Hitler never actually won an election. Instead, Hitler succeeded Hindenburg when he retired (succeeded, not elected, thus Hitler obtained power in the same way kings and queens do, not democratically). This was because the Weimar Republic actually allowed the second place loser to ascend to president if the winner dies or resigns. Again, it is the "right of inheritance" that brought Hitler to power.

Pol Pot was elected by a "Representative Assembly" and not by the people.

by witchfinder Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:56 pm

RockOnBrother - raises an interesting poin of discussion when he says >
"even within England, folks from one small area feel what seems to me relatively mild kinship with folks from another small area of England."

Has it got something to do with our race, our ancestory or genes, or has it got something to do with the fact that British people just have a much longer history, and have been fighting and squabbling for 2000 years. ?

Take for example Lancashire and Yorkshire, and I know that its not a serious issue ( not like it once was ), but the rivalry and the jokes and insults are still there.

How about people from Fife, many will tell you "were not Scottish" and go on to proclaim they are from the Kingdom of Fife.

Then theres the Cornish who insist they are not English, the Orkadians who vow never to belong to an independent Scotland, it seems that who you are realy matters to some people.

In the United States accents do not seem to change that much over vast differences, as an outsider I can tell the difference between southern United States and northern, and I can spot the difference between an American accent and a Canadian accent.

Over here, I can spot the difference in accent from someone 12 miles away, their use of certain words is different, a person from Middlesbrough speaks totaly different to someone from Saltburn, yet it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get from one place to the other by car.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:49 pm

Has it got something to do with our race, our ancestory or genes, or has it got something to do with the fact that British people just have a much longer history, and have been fighting and squabbling for 2000 years. ?

I think you're on the right track when you mention 'fighting and squabbling for 2000 years.' England did not start off united. Before the Kingdom of England was established, there were a plethora of small, autonomous states that competed with one another. Most likely, despite the passage of almost a thousand years, those rivalries still remain.

Over here, I can spot the difference in accent from someone 12 miles away, their use of certain words is different, a person from Middlesbrough speaks totaly different to someone from Saltburn, yet it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get from one place to the other by car.

I think if you've lived in and traveled the USA more extensively, you'd notice the differences in accents straight away. I can peg an accent very easily. For instance, people in western New York pronounce God as "Gahd" and car as "Cahr." But just 200 miles south in western Pennsylvania, they pronounce the same words as "gawd" and "caar." But, if you're from Pittsburgh, a house is pronounced "haus" but north along the Allegheny Valley, it's pronounced "howse."

New England accents are very distinctive - just listen to speech from Kennedy. For a brief span upon moving to the USA, I couldn't quite figure out where "Cuber" was until I realized he was saying "Cuba" with a New England accent. Then there is the Minnesota accent which makes just about every vowel almost over-pronounced (watch the movie Fargo to see what I mean). Then there is the much-loved Brooklyn accent. I had a friend with that accent but he lived on Long Island ... we used to joke about how he was actually from "Lon Guwyland."

British accents are very distinctive as well, even to American ears, but some of them are very subtle. LOL! My friends and I watched a movie the other day that was set in East London. They were getting all irritated because they couldn't understand a word the characters said, and I had to "translate" for them (I never lived there but heard the accent often enough to understand it).

by astra Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:07 pm

I just love all the accents I come accross. I feel that those who say accents should be wiped out, are very shallow - ask them and they cannot say why accents are somehow derogatory!
AND that the English language holds up so well under all this 'attack' just adds to it's intrest.

eeeeyup, from the pidgin inglish of the Carribean up to the Canadian accent and over to the old homeland, the language does very well.

I always wonder why it is said that the best dialect of 'Queen's English' is in Inverness in Scotland. I love the place and the people - well I would, many relatives in that part of the country.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:27 pm

QUOTE: "I think you're on the right track when you mention 'fighting and squabbling for 2000 years.' England did not start off united."

Remarkable insight.

England did not start off united. The USA did not start off united. Italy did not start off united. France did not start off united. Germany did not start off united. Russia did not start off united. China did not start off united. Greece did not start off united. Turkey did not start off united. The United Nations began as The League of Nations.

Seems to be rather common.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:46 pm

The USA did not start off united.

For the most part, yes, it did. Granted we had loyalists - ironically called the Tories - who wished to remain a part of England, but if America had not been united in its desire to separate, we could never have won the Revolutionary War. But, the most important point here is that America did not start out as a patchwork of autonomous, independent quasi-states the way England did. As for Italy, Germany, etc., other nations that did start out this way, well, there are still remnants of their divisions as well.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:21 pm

....a patchwork of autonomous, independent quasi-states....

but still jealously guard their own legislature, so that some States have capital punishment and others don't, have independent local taxation and even separate treatment of religion or voting rights.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:25 pm

jackthelad wrote:-
Well our head of state unlike Presidents are not involved in politics, does have the power to remove Prime Ministers though who abusing there power. When a government is elected they hand over a list of policies they plan to carry out to the Queen or King, who reads them out at the opening of the new parliament…..The present system suits everyone……I wonder if the Bushes have ever been certified, I thought the father and son were a couple of crackpots.

Hello jack. When did a monarch last remove a PM who was abusing his or her power? Not in living memory. And what constitutes “abusing power”? Some might argue – me included – that Cameron has abused his power by bringing in a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, putting up VAT, closing Sure Start centres and abolishing the Education Maintenance Allowance after saying, during the election campaign, that he would do none of those things. As he’s only in power by courtesy of the Lib Dems, who offered left-wing policies to the electorate, the abuse is compounded. Yet there’s no chance that the Queen will remove Cameron, her fifth cousin twice removed, from office, and I don’t think she should – it would be an abuse of her constitutional role.

The present system doesn’t suit everyone – about a third of the population are republicans – and the monarchy is most certainly political. The recent wedding showed that, when two former Tory PMs were invited and two former Labour PMs weren’t. The Duke has been sticking his right-wing oar in on the issue of solar power recently, Charles is continually boring us with his views and wants the restoration of foxhunting, and it was well known that the late Queen Mother supported apartheid in South Africa. Would you expect anything other than for one of the richest families of parasites in the country to be right-wing?

Whatever you say about the Bush family (for which I have little respect, as it made its fortune money laundering for Nazi supporters in WWII), it didn’t stay in power in perpetuity but was required to face the American electorate every four years.

by atv Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:19 am

by Ivan on Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:25 pm
When did a monarch last remove a PM who was abusing his or her power? Not in living memory. And what constitutes “abusing power”? Some might argue – me included – that Cameron has abused his power by bringing in a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, putting up VAT, closing Sure Start centres and abolishing the Education Maintenance Allowance after saying, during the election campaign, that he would do none of those things.

Ah, then we have Labour. Always leave the country in a far worse state when they leave office, than when they entered office. Remember all those Labour lies, uttered by liar Tony Blair. See how rich he has become after his disastrous tenure as PM. His lies slide off him like water off a ducks back. Always remember that the man who was his chancellor, and the chief architect of the fiscal mess we are in now, ousted Blair from office, and then ruins the country. Now in true Labour character, not Nu-labour but communist inspired old Labour, it's fleece the workers to support the shirkers. Decimate the wealth creating private sector, and shower ever more money on the non-productive public sector. Strip the wealth creators and hard workers of the money they've EARNED, and give it to the lazy and the feckless who don't want to work. It's old Labour through and through. Communism by another name. They've mortgaged our futures on this socialist nightmare.
Joe Bloggs has never stood a chance with these thieves, and still they wanted more by stealing from the taxpayers on the expenses claims fiasco. And they wonder why the electorate don't bother to vote !!

Does that constitute “abusing power”? Some might argue – me included it does.

by jackthelad Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:35 am

Ivan say's,

Hello jack. When did a monarch last remove a PM who was abusing his or her power? Not in living memory.

True, but it is because they have never had a reason to do so.
Has far as Philip with is right wing views, he has every right to his opinion has anyone, you and i have our opinions, different to Philips, in fact entirely opposite to his. I don't like Philip, i think he is an embarrassment to the country, plus his three sons are not much better. The eldest is an adulterer, the youngest is weak, the middle, i don't have the words to describe him. Just one thing in is favour, he did do his part in the Falklands.
Cameron is guilty of being a liar, saying one thing before an election then doing the opposite, nothing strange in that, politicians have been doing it for centuries.
If they shot people for telling lies, most people in the country would have been stood against a wall at sometime or another.
Has far as the coalition is concerned, that is our system, Labour would have made a pact with the Lib/Dems, if they could have. We have too many political parties, it makes it awkward for a party to form a government unless they have a thumping majority.
I think Shirina, or Rock said, America has only two political parties, so one or the other is usually an out right winner, don't know what happens if it was a tie, toss a coin maybe.
People have to remember at the next election what party was the biggest fibbers at the last election.

by atv Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:26 pm

Re: Is the United Kingdom doomed?
by jackthelad Today at 11:35 am

People have to remember at the next election what party was the biggest fibbers at the last election..

As you rightly say "politicians have been doing it for centuries", so no change there.
What will decide the next election IMO is the state of the UK. Getting unemployment down is the first priority, remember the last government disguised it by employing people in the public sector and getting them onto other benefits. As a result we have run out of money. Now there is no money and massive debts, the reality of unemployment hits home.
I know I'll be accused of being a racist, but immigration needs to be better controlled. In 2004, most countries (including Germany and France) placed restrictions on new EU members entering the job market, whereas New Labour placed no limits and said ‘all are welcome’ come on down. Immediately before the floodgates were opened, so much for Tony Blair promising that only 13,000 people would arrive from Eastern Europe.
Banks should be made to loan to businsses and industry.
So basically the winners of the next election is whether the UK prospers or not, and not that politicians have told "porkies".

by ROB Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:59 pm

jackthelad wrote:
I think Shirina, or Rock said, America has only two political parties, so one or the other is usually an out right winner, don't know what happens if it was a tie, toss a coin maybe.

Jack,

Shirina said, and it’s true. The last President of the United States who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican took office in 1857. Prior to that, there were still but two parties from which presidents were elected.

An interesting aspect of our two party system is that it’s mentioned nowhere in the US Constitution. In fact, “third” parties arise and stick around on a regular basis, but none have managed to “persuade” American voters to elect their candidates to the presidency. Occasionally, a “third party” will influence which of the two major party candidates is elected. Note that there can be, as is the case right now, more than one “third party”; including the major parties, I believe there were five parties with presidential candidates on my 4 November 2008 ballot.

Ties are damned near impossible. First, Presidents of the United States are elected by majority vote of the Electoral College. I suppose that there might be some combination of states’ electoral votes that would comprise half of 538, but it seems unlikely.

By the way, excuse my manners for assuming you know the intricacies of US presidential elections. The Electoral College is elected every four years, in fifty-one separate state elections (in presidential elections, the District of Columbia, Washington D.C., is treated as a state). The voters of each state elect a slate of electors that are pledged to vote for a specific candidate. The number of electors from each state varies pretty much by population; each state elects a number of electors equal to that state’s combined number of senators and representatives to the house.

So, in 2008, since California had 53 representatives to the house (commonly called “congressmen”) and 2 senators, California elected 55 electors, while Texas, the second most populous state, with 32 congressmen and 2 senators, elected 34 electors. The least populous states, like Wyoming, with 1 congressman and 2 senators, elected 3 electors.

Since the House has 435 members and the Senate 100 (2 per state), that’s 535 electors. Washington D.C. is treated as if it’s the smallest state (although I betcha it has more people than Wyoming), so it elects 3 electors, for a total of 538 electors.

Rather than a tie, it would be more likely that, in a close election, a third party would capture the electoral votes of at least one state, denying anyone a majority of the electoral vote. In such a case, there is a procedure mandated in the Constitution to select a president.

Distribution of 2004/2008 Electoral Votes

What is the Electoral College?

How Many Votes do States Get?

How does the Electoral College elect the President?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?

by ROB Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:42 pm

Ivan wrote:
Whatever you say about the Bush family (for which I have little respect, as it made its fortune money laundering for Nazi supporters in WWII), it didn’t stay in power in perpetuity but was required to face the American electorate every four years.

What I say about the Bush family depends upon which member of the Bush family I’m saying whatever I say. While “Daddy” Bush’s daddy was collaborating with Nazis, his son, George Herbert Walker Bush, was flying dive bombers off of carriers in the Pacific Ocean and getting shot down by forces of the Empire of Japan, so George H.W. Bush earned my respect and enduring gratitude for that.

Also, when the world needed someone to tell Saddam “what’s up” in the only language that beasts undrs6tand, George H.W. Bush did exactly that, in a superbly directed warm so once again, he earned my respect.

On the flip side, I believe George H.W> Bush was involved in the “unfortunate” fate which befell Salvador Allende, and I also believe he had a key role in the portion of Iran-Contra that facilitated Freeway Ricky Ross’s spread on crack cocaine across America.

To sum it up, I respect that which he did that demands respect, I abhor that which I believe he did that demands abhorrence, and I don’t trust him.

Now “Baby” Bush is another story. Nowhere near as capable as his daddy, he seems far more genuine. I like him, I trust him, and George W. and Laura have a standing invitation to come by my house anytime for some serious bar-b-que. They can bring mother and mother-in-law Barbara, and I’ll make sure she gets the best ribs and “the big piece of chicken.”

That being said, our current president is a wee bit better at the job that George W., particularly in the geopolitical sphere. Check him out back in early May 2011:

George, “you can’t touch this.”

by **Ivan** Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:41 pm

As you rightly say "politicians have been doing it for centuries", so no change there.

atv. Agreed, but probably not on the industrial scale in which both Cameron and Clegg have lied.

Getting unemployment down is the first priority, remember the last government disguised it by employing people in the public sector and getting them onto other benefits.

Having a job in the public sector is not disguised unemployment, it’s employment. Ask anyone who still works in the public sector if they go to work and get paid every month or if they sign on at the Job Centre every fortnight.

I see you’re using that old Tory myth about Incapacity Benefit. It was Thatcher and Major who tacitly oversaw the transfer of large numbers of the unemployed to IB, to the extent that 2.37 million people were drawing it in May 1997. Despite a much larger population, that number only rose to 2.4 million under Labour.

As a result we have run out of money.

Firstly, we haven’t run out of money, the government can find it when it wishes to bomb Libya, start free schools, bail out Greece or put a King James Bible in every school. Secondly, I can scarcely believe that you appear to be trying to blame Gordon Brown for the global credit crisis again - we’ve moved on, ask Cameron. Since blaming Brown for all the world’s ills, it’s been snow, the royal wedding and the eurozone. Of course it’s never anything to do with Osborne’s insane policy of treating a patient who has anaemia with blood-letting, is it?

I know I'll be accused of being a racist, but immigration needs to be better controlled

No, you’re not a racist, and we should be allowed to discuss immigration without being so labelled. I heard the other day that Asians contribute 8% of our GDP but only make up 4% of the population, but I don’t have the source to hand. All immigrants are taxpayers (even those out of work pay VAT), and they all create demand, which helps to stimulate the economy.

Whether or not immigration is “a problem” is the subject of another thread on this board, just as this conversation would really be more appropriate on the “Who is right about the economy?” thread on the UK Economics board.

by astra Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:07 pm

Is the United Kingdom doomed?

Yes!

As you alluded elsewhere Ivan -
'Bungling' French firm replaces British staff guarding our borders'

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2011/11/24/bungling-french-firm-replaces-british-staff-guarding-our-borders/#

Brown let us down, but Teresa May has sold us DOWN THE RIVER!!!

Tell me!

Why should'nt this company just NOT BOTHER about doing the job and just 'go through the motions?'

After all nothing is in their intrest to do a good job is it?

by ROB Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:42 pm

Shirina wrote:
I think if you've lived in and traveled the USA more extensively, you'd notice the differences in accents straight away.

Check out these accents:

Lyndon Baines Johnson on voting rights

James Earl Carter

Justin Wilson

Chris Rock

Chris Rock is from Brooklyn.

by Shirina Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:24 pm

George, “you can’t touch this.”

LOL! Loved the video, Rock.

but still jealously guard their own legislature, so that some States have capital punishment and others don't, have independent local taxation and even separate treatment of religion or voting rights.

Our states are quasi-autonomous, but they are not independent - and they never were (only Texas can make the claim of true independence from 1836 to 1846). Therefore, my argument still stands that the US did not begin as a divided patchwork of petty kingdoms and rival tribes. The territorial rivalries that exist in the US today often stem from rival sports teams (put a Cleveland Browns fan and a Pittsburgh Steelers fan in the same room together and watch the fur fly) or they come from the "Billy Yank" vs. "Johnny Reb" rivalry left over from the Civil War.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:28 pm

When in doubt, change the subject.

by ROB Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:48 am

Shirina wrote:

George, “you can’t touch this.”

LOL! Loved the video, Rock.

Barack “got a little swagger, don’t he?” Whoever Alpha cat is, he “knows” Barack.

Shirina wrote:
Our states are quasi-autonomous, but they are not independent - and they never were (only Texas can make the claim of true independence from 1836 to 1846). Therefore, my argument still stands that the US did not begin as a divided patchwork of petty kingdoms and rival tribes. The territorial rivalries that exist in the US today often stem from rival sports teams (put a Cleveland Browns fan and a Pittsburgh Steelers fan in the same room together and watch the fur fly) or they come from the "Billy Yank" vs. "Johnny Reb" rivalry left over from the Civil War.

A little tweaking.

First of all, we thank you for that extra year, but we joined the Union in late 1845, almost 1846, so we didn’t quite make ten years of independence. But the Republic of Texas, with the Lone Star overhead, gifts the modern Sovereign State of Texas, the Lone Star still proudly flying overhead, with a legacy of liberty and independence. I remain proud that a Native Son, Lyndon Baines Johnson, gifted America with actualization of 14th and 15th Amendments equal protection and voting rights through ramrodding the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Second, the states are not quasi-autonomous; each is sovereign. However, each gives up certain sovereign powers to the central (commonly called “federal”) government and shares certain other powers with the federal government. Neither is superior to the other, and both (or all fifty-one) operate under and in adherence to the supreme law of the land, the supreme law in all jurisdictions, the United States Constitution. It’s really an ongoing experiment in simultaneous sovereignty, necessiatated by the fact that a non-sovereign central government was shown to be unworkable during the Articles of Confederation period.

Australia, which follows our federal model of simultaneous sovereignty, actually says that each Australian state is sovereign. As far as I can tell, Canada and its provinces operate the same. Of course, both Australia and Canada differ from the US by adopting the Westminster system, which seems to be more the norm in democracies worldwide, particularly new democracies.

Nonetheless, as you’ve stated, the fifty states are not independent except in our shared independence as the United States of America.

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:50 pm

Is the United Kingdom doomed?

Watch this space.

by Penderyn Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:29 pm

Since the majority of the English have a sick longing to vote for their rich masters and do as the Noise Machine tells 'em, how can the UK be other than finished? It is, certainly, a joke that has gone on far too long. The difficulty is that - despite the names they use - the population of 'England' have mostly thought their Country was Britain at the very least, and will be a bit baffled and bored to be stuck with just one another. God grant we shan't be stuck with them, whatever!

by witchfinder Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:14 pm

I hope everyone has had an enjoyable Christmas day

Interesting item in todays news - Brazil has pushed the UK into position number 7 in the league of economic powers, all part of the growing shift of power away from the traditional advanced industrial nations to Asia and Brazil + emerging nations.

Let us be absolutely honest, Scottish people are doing much better than anyone else in the UK, they enjoy better social care, free pescriptions, no tuition fees and a distinct lack of tories - Its quite possible that after coming off better than tory England through the years of cuts, Alex Salmond may just pull off his referendum dream in 2014 or 2015.

A "yes" vote in Scotland in two or three years from now would indeed be the end of the United Kingdom, the people working in the Union Flag ( union jack ) factory would be made redundant.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:28 am

QUOTE: "Brazil has pushed the UK into position number 7 in the league of economic powers"

For the past ten years, British blood and British money has seeped into the sand of Iraq and Afghanistan to no apparent purpose. Perhaps there is a connection.

by atv Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:07 pm

Is the United Kingdom doomed?

Yes, if you visit any of the Left-leaning websites, Twitter feeds or editorial pages of the Guardian, those who refuse to countenance any flaws among the leadership or within Labour’s economic strategy who continue to peddle their crackpot theories, and pounce aggressively on any non-believers.

by bobby Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:39 pm

You still seem to forget. No matter what us left thinking people think of you Tory's. Its the Tory's who are in Power. We can say anythig we like, and it will make no difference to the Brain Dead Tory. They/you will still continue with the no growth strategy, sit on your bums and hope a miracle might happen. We have seen 20 months of failed economic policy, yet you have the temerity to call left wing theories as "crackpot". I'm sure even you must see that you twat Leader and his boys policies just aint and wont work. With them in power we will have all the pain for no good reason, or perhaps you could show some figures proving you Tory's have it right. Everything points to failure, yet you Tory's still blame and throw stones and verbal Diaorhea at Labour or the left, yet have nothing to say of the Government of the day, Your Tory Government.

atv wrote
"and pounce aggressively on any non-believers."

And of course all you have to say, is measured reason.

Just for once, and it would be a first. Speak of your hero's and tell us exactly what it is they are doing right. As all you have ever done is to critisize the party which has no power to change the major gaffs made by Herr Cameron and Herd.

by Penderyn Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:26 pm

One reason the UK is finished is that the tories are prepared to sell us out and turn us into an American colony. What do they care about a lot of bloody people!

by witchfinder Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:44 pm

The present policies of the coalition government are clearly not working, and anyone who believes or thinks they are, or that we are in a better or stronger position than we were 20 months ago are living in a dilusional world.
On the other hand there are those of the "old labour" vanguard who believe that we can spend our way out of trouble, these people are equaly as looney as the nasty tories.

There is a middle ground which is strongly advocated by many leading economists, and which does have the backing of the IMF and World Bank contrary to what George Osborne may bleet, the policies as suggested by Ed Milliband and Ed Balls is a very credible plan.

Instead of attempting to get rid of the deficit in 5 years, the alternative plan was to half the deficit in the same time scale, this plan originates from Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown and was declared to be a credible plan by the Office for Budget Responsibility in 2010.

Such a plan would have meant less drastic cuts, it would not have resulted in the cutting off of growth, which is precisely what has happened under this government, the present lack of growth in the UK economy is making any defecit reduction plan harder to achieve, allready the coalition has had to admit that its original goal is now off the horizon.

The initial tory plan to wipe out the defecit was not an economic plan - it was a political plan, aimed solely at winning the general election of 2015, but its all gone wrong, they should have listened to what Vince Cable and Nick Clegg were saying in April 2010 "cutting too quickly and too deeply would cut off the recovery" << How very true Mr Clegg and Mr Cable, but alas these gentlemen have now changed their opinions.

Is the UK doomed ?

In Scotland and Wales combined there are a total of 9 Conservative MPs in Westminster, not a very good recipe for harmony within the Kingdom, obviously the tories are very much an English political party.

by atv Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:26 pm

bobby wrote:
Just for once, and it would be a first. Speak of your hero's and tell us exactly what it is they are doing right.

As I have already stated the Coalition have been in power less than 2 years, and you expect them to put right the problems the Coalition inherited, yes INHERITED. Labour had 2 years to make the cuts that now advocate, 2 years to make plans, but NO there was an election on the cards, so they did what any socialist government would do, NOTHING, just hope it gets better in time.
Well look what's happening in Europe when you do nothing and just hope it gets better in time!!

Well there are two things they are doing right,
Raising the income tax allowance.
Allowing councils to use a small amount of housing revenue to build social housing and allowing councils to borrow to build. Limited but better than nothing, but more than what Labour did in 13 years.

Ask me the same question in 2015, I may be able to give you a more detailed account.

by Penderyn Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:44 pm

atv wrote:
bobby wrote:
Just for once, and it would be a first. Speak of your hero's and tell us exactly what it is they are doing right.

As I have already stated the Coalition have been in power less than 2 years, and you expect them to put right the problems the Coalition inherited, yes INHERITED. Labour had 2 years to make the cuts that now advocate, 2 years to make plans, but NO there was an election on the cards, so they did what any socialist government would do, NOTHING, just hope it gets better in time.
Well look what's happening in Europe when you do nothing and just hope it gets better in time!!

Well there are two things they are doing right,
Raising the income tax allowance.
Allowing councils to use a small amount of housing revenue to build social housing and allowing councils to borrow to build. Limited but better than nothing, but more than what Labour did in 13 years.

Ask me the same question in 2015, I may be able to give you a more detailed account.

As you know, this is a class-war government whose only purpose is to take everything from the poor they can, including life. As you know, the tory and labour policies were the same, and were destroyed by the collapse of the capitalism they both believed in. Why play these silly games? You are either in favour of the cannibals or their victims. Choose.

by witchfinder Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:45 pm

atv wrote "Labour had 2 years to make the cuts"

Not true actualy, the UK came out of recession at the end of 2009, the reality is that the time between a return to growth and the general election was just 5 months, unless of course you are suggesting that the previous government should have commenced cuts half way through a recession. ?

WEll its probably the kind of thing messers Cameron and Osborne would have done, and then when it all went wrong they simply blame the previous government.

by atv Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:49 pm

I think the real assessment of this government will happen when the cuts actually begin to bite. They're almost coasting at the minute simply because people don't appear to be feeling the effect in their everyday lives quite yet.

One thing I WILL say is that I highly dislike the assumption that Labour are obviously a MILLION MILES BETTER. A lot of people I know appear to support Labour almost by default, and the cuts might have been in more favourable places, but there would obviously still have been cuts to be made. And without wanting to sound overly TORY, but the Labour Government are not entirely blameless in the complete MESS of a situation we find ourselves in.

As I have stated many times before, this government will live or die by what happens in the next three and a half years.
The economic crisis in the World just looks to get DEEPER and DEEPER. We do seem we have escaped some of the disasters that have been happening across Europe economically and that COULD BE due to the government preventing a terrible situation from being disastrous one. But it's probably too early to tell. Let's see where we are in 2015.

by bobby Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:23 pm

atv wrote
"I think the real assessment of this government will happen when the cuts actually begin to bite."

Exactly what planet are you on. Why dont you ask the extra millions allready made unemployed,the new homeless, those back on hospital waiting lists (a thing with the aid of private services, Labour had rid us of) The elderly who's lives are now at risk due to Government cuts, The thousands of kids now on the scrapheap, because of Tory Policy, this is before the true cost of Conservartive folly rears its ugly head. Just what is it you are waiting for, before you will be honest enough to admit HERR CAMERON has has phucked up massively, and all to the cost of the poor and needy.

atv wrote

"As I have stated many times before, this government will live or die by what happens in the next three and a half years."

No atv, no one in this abortion of a Government will die, its those they leave behind that will do that, those that are the target for their filthy policies, they are the that are dying and more will follow.

atv wrote

"We do seem we have escaped some of the disasters that have been happening across Europe economically and that COULD BE due to the government preventing a terrible situation from being disastrous one."

I'm sure with a little effort, you could have made that statement even more ambiguous. The word you chose to highlite could just have easily been couldn't, but then you knew that didn't you, why else did you highlite it.

I gather you are still employed, just wait till your not, then we will hear what you will have to say. But then again that would take a modicum of honesty, a trait not common in Conservative circles.

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:43 pm

"Raising the income tax allowance."
.............. whilst at the same time reducing the amount payable to the low-paid through tax credits.

Wait for howls of protest after April 5th. brings that home to the people affected.

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth BUT a raised tax allowance helps the higher tax-payers as well, in proportion, though not those liable to the top 50-pence rate.

by witchfinder Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:19 pm

As a labour supporter I do not pretend that the previous government were faultless, and to pretend that everything labour did was right would be to live in cuckoo land.

The only possible argument that may bare some relevance coming from the present shower is where they accuse labour of not giving financial regulators enough teeth or power, which is realy quite a laugh coming from a government that does not believe in regulation.

Whether the FSA or even the Bank of England did have considerably more power or not, it certainly would not of made any difference as the financial crisis was spread all accross the world, there is no shield or barrier to world-wide recession or financial crisis.

I regularly read articles by professor Paul Krugman, who is widely regarded as the worlds number 1 economist, an American who has close ties to the UK and the London School of Economics, professor Krugman is a Nobel prize winning economist who writes in the NYT amongst other papers.

Unfortunately if you are from the Conservative side of British politics, you would not like what you read from professor Krugman, particularly on what he has to say about David Cameron.

by atv Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:06 pm

bobby wrote: Why dont you ask the extra millions allready made unemployed,the new homeless, those back on hospital waiting lists (a thing with the aid of private services, Labour had rid us of) The elderly who's lives are now at risk due to Government cuts, The thousands of kids now on the scrapheap, because of Tory Policy.

Millions? Are you sure about that?
You must be talking about all the foreigners pinching our jobs then.....
You are a great believer in slave labour then?

I gather you are still employed, just wait till your not, then we will hear what you will have to say.

Yes I am, and if I did lose my job through no fault of my own, I would find another as soon as possible.

But did we hear from you when thousands of businesses closed, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, and do you really believe that there wouldn't be thousands of kids on the scrapheap if Labour were still in power?
Then you are just as deluded as the other bunch of lefties who refuse to accept that this is the Labour party who claims to want to protect the poor and vulnerable. Great idea, but when every action you take makes them poorer and more vulnerable, it makes the lying hypocrisy even harder to take.

by Sponsored content