England needs its own Parliament

[Blackleaf]

Considering that the other thread with this topic has been locked, I'll have to create this new thread.

How can anyone say that I'm "racist" by saying that England should have its own Parliament? If I'm racist for saying that, then all those Scots who wanted Scotland to have its own Parliament must also be racist! It's just the same.

I never said that there should be no Scottish MP's. I said that the situation that is happening now is unfair to the English because, as Scotland has its own Parliament, then there are certain areas of politics in Scotland that only Scottish MP's have a say in and not English MP's, but Scots can have a say in ALL areas of politics in England because we don't have our own Parliament.

Is it fair that English MP's are excluded from making decisions in the Scottish Health Service but Scottish MP's are allowed to make decision regarding the English Health Service? Why can't the English have their own Health Minister? After all, the Scots have one.

Top-up fees are another thing in Scotland that is debated in the Scottish Parliament. English MP's CANNOT decide on whether or not to introduce top-up fees in Scotland because that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide. BUT, a few months ago, in the British Parliament, there was a debate about whether or not top-up fees should be introduced into England. All the English MP's were against top-up fees, and voted against it, but Scottish MP's OVERTURNED the decision and now we have top-up fees in England?

So that was a situation where the English had no say in deciding whether or not to introduce top-up fees in Scotland, but the Scottish MP's had a say in whether or not to introduce top-up fees in England and, thanks to them, we have top-up fees.

That is not fair and not democratic. Why should the English have Scots telling them to have top-up fees in England when the English can't tell the Scots to introduce top-up fees in Scotland?

That's why England needs its own Parliament, so only ENGLISH MP's can debate things that are of a concern to ENGLAND and not Scotland.

[Blackleaf]

This is from the Campaign for an English Parliament website -

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Don’t we already have an English Parliament at Westminster?

Unfortunately not. The Westminster Parliament is the UK Parliament, containing MPs from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

2. But hasn’t Scotland and Welsh devolution made the Westminster Parliament in effect an English Parliament?

Far from it. In spite of having their own Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, Scottish and Welsh MPs are still entitled to attend the Westminster Parliament and vote on matters affecting only England, such as health, education and transport, etc. However, English MPs are not entitled to vote on matters affecting Scotland or Wales.

3. Why do we need an English Parliament at all? With 80% of the MPs in the House of Commons representing English constituencies, isn’t the Westminster Parliament an English Parliament in all but name?

It certainly is not. Not one of the MPs in the Commons represents the country his/her constituency is in, be it England, Scotland or Wales. They represent just their constituency and the political party they belong to. There is no national link-up between Westminster MPs at all, only party political link-ups. And in fact, a lot of the MPs for English constituencies are not English but Scottish and Welsh – like the present Prime Minister who is Scottish and Deputy Prime Minister who is Welsh. England as England has no representation in the Westminster Parliament.

4. What exactly is the constitutional position of England, Scotland and Wales?

Constitutionally and politically England does not exist. It ceased to exist politically and constitutionally in 1707 with the Act of Union. So did Scotland. But Scotland received back its constitutional and political existence, and hence its national existence, in 1998 when it got back its Parliament. So did Wales with the Welsh Assembly. But as there is no single constitutional and political institutional representing England, it alone of the three nations of the island of Britain does not exist politically and constitutionally.

5. What exactly is the constitutional position of English, Welsh and Scottish people?

Constitutionally there are three sorts of people in the island of Great Britain. There are those who are Scottish and British, those who are Welsh and British and those who are just British. No prizes for guessing who this last group is. Constitutionally and politically the English just do not exist, while the Scottish and the Welsh do. Now do you see why England must have its own Parliament?

6. But surely the people of England are represented in Westminster through their constituencies which are in England?

No, they are not. Westminster MPs represent individual constituencies, not countries. They represent small bits of the UK and they, rightly, promote the interests of the bit they represent, not the whole. Not one of them represents the UK as the UK. But collectively they do represent the UK, of course they do. But not England or Scotland or Wales. Now, whereas the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly expressly represent Scotland and Wales, nobody and nothing represents England. This is unfair. England and the people of England are non-entities as far as the British state is concerned, unlike the Scots and the Welsh. The English should get the same national recognition as the Scots and the Welsh.

7. What would an English Parliament do for England that the Westminster or UK Parliament isn’t already doing?

For a start, it would give the people of England a legally and constitutionally recognised national identity as English, and allow them to be proud of their own national identity. At present they are English, but outside sport they have no way of showing it. That’s wrong. But if they got their own parliament again, then they could point to it knowing it was originally founded in 1153 and existed as the very Mother of Parliaments and the seed bed of modern democracy, and proudly say, that’s part of what we’ve achieved as the English nation. That’s our contribution to world civilisation and progress. That, along with our English language, our unrivalled literary culture and our scientific and engineering achievements.

8. Won’t an English Parliament simply create an extra layer of politicians, bureaucracy and cost?

Remember, an English Parliament is about transferring governmental powers downwards, not increasing them. We want an English Parliament to be given the same powers to decide on English matters as the Scottish Parliament has on Scottish matters. This means around 75% of all decisions affecting the people o England would no longer be taken by Westminster, but by our own English Parliament. Whatever will be done through the English Parliament will no longer be done through the UK Parliament. There would be a corresponding reduction in politicians, civil servants and expenditure devoted to UK-wide matters. The UK Parliament and Government will henceforth be greatly slimmed down institutions dealing only with reserved matters that affect the whole of the UK, so there should not be any increase in bureaucracy and expenditure. Politics must be for people, not for bureaucrats and politicians.

9. OK. You get an English Parliament. Where will you have it located?

It will be up to the English People in their own Parliament to decide its location. They could decide it will be in London as the historic capital city. However, as London will remain the seat of the UK government and has the bulk of political, cultural and media institutions already, there is a strong case for making another city the home of the English Parliament. Cities like Manchester or Leeds or Birmingham are more central to England if one draws a line from the Scillies to Berwick-on-Tweed and have excellent rail, air and road connections. Such a location will certainly help to decentralise power, wealth and cultural activity, which is what devolution is about. However, it will be for the English Parliament to make that decision.

10. Wouldn’t an English Parliament totally unbalance the United Kingdom? It has 83% of the population and a similar proportion of wealth. Wouldn’t England become too dominant?

In no way. For the simple reason that an English Parliament will not be dealing with any matter that is the responsibility of the other nations, or any matter that is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Each of the four parliaments and assemblies would have their own responsibilities for their own people, which no other parliament or assembly could interfere with. That for a start keeps the arrangement fair and even. Secondly, the UK Parliament would naturally retain responsibilities for the major matters concerning the whole, like defence, major taxation, foreign relations, matters of macro economics and matters of trade and transport which affect the whole of the UK. So again, the size of England would not matter. Also, if each parliament and assembly received from the UK Government the same amount of public expenditure for each citizen, there would be total equality of opportunity and expenditure (very unlike now) where each citizen of Scotland and Wales receives 28% more on public services than each taxpayer in England, thanks to the infamous Barnett Formula). Such a fair arrangement would render each parliament equal in real wealth. It is just and equitable.

11. Won’t regional assemblies throughout England bring power much closer to the people?

No, quite the opposite in fact. The UK Government plans to set up regional assemblies and simultaneously abolish English County Councils, thereby removing decision making from local control within the country or shire to a regional administrative centre, based perhaps more than 100 miles away. In the proposed South East Region, for example, local government policies for Oxfordshire will be decided in Canterbury. Democratic control of Cornwall’s affairs will be removed from the county and controlled from Bristol. Economic development in Cumbria will be decided on in Manchester.

Furthermore as the population of England is predominantly urban, the regional assemblies will be dominated by metropolitan and urban areas, leaving the rural counties with little or no say in their own government. Power will be taken from them and transferred to the city electorates who do not live in the counties and do not understand their needs. So, for example, the residents of Cheshire or Shropshire or Northumberland or Cornwall will be governed from Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Bristol respectively. This will mean that new developments like sprawling housing estates, noisy concrete roads and towering incinerators may well be imposed upon the rural areas irrespective of local wishes. To make matters worse there will be only at most 35 members of these assemblies, ruling over 'regions' bigger than some European countries. And their composition will be such that in the North West the three counties of Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire will get a mere nine seats between with the urban areas taking the remaining 26. It is a denial of any genuine democracy.

12. Shouldn’t there be regional assemblies to reflect and develop the great regional diversity that makes up England? After all, England is notoriously tribal. Look at its football teams and their supporters.

Strange that this is only being said about England. The UK Government, and the Scottish ministers in it, and the Scottish MPs and MSPs have never said it about Scotland. Scotland is far more diverse politically, economically and culturally than England. The Western Isles and the Highlands are Celtic in language and culture, quite distinct from the Anglo-Saxon regions of the Central Belt and the Lowlands. Edinburgh is much closer in every form of culture to London and Manchester than it is to Argyll, Skye or Lewis. Orkney and Shetland are Norse in their history and culture, not Scottish at all. Yet a single Scottish Parliament is seen fit to preside over this geographically vast and culturally diverse area. No one suggests that Scotland should be balkanised into regions. Why England all of a sudden? One wonders. England is a single nation and deserves a single parliament. It is meaningless to talk about regional assemblies when the fate of the nation of which they are merely divisions is ignored.

13. Is a national centre of government really in people’s best interests? Surely it’s best to have something like the Swiss Cantons or the German Lander with institutions with institutions which are definitely regional and make politicians participation so much more direct and available?

True. And not true. You’ve got to consider it a bit more carefully. You’ve got to compare like with like. It is true that Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and the rest have regional governments. But those countries have something else which makes all the difference. They each have a national parliament – in Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Bern – and that national parliament is the political and constitutional representative of their national identity. They don’t have regional governments and nothing else. Not at all. Otherwise they would disintegrate into chaos. They wouldn’t exist as Spain or Germany or Italy or Switzerland. They’d be Tuscany and Umbria and Lombardy and Perugia, Bayern, Nord-Rhein Westphalia, Brandenburg, Thuringia, etc. and nothing else. What makes them Spain and Germany and Italy is their sense of national identity which finds expression in a national parliament with real powers. But this Government’s proposal to partition England into regions with regional assemblies is something else. You can’t compare it with Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the rest because England doesn’t have a national parliament in the first place. If you partition Scotland like the Government intends for England, it would still be Scotland politically and constitutionally because its unity is in its parliament. But England? Partition it into regions and not only will it not exist politically, as now, but it won’t even exist geographically either.

14. How will an English Parliament benefit the people of England?

It will be the formal, decisive and authoritative statement of the political and constitutional existence of the distinct entity and unity of the English people, as has been given to Scotland through its parliament and to Wales through its assembly. It will, in the words of the Act setting up the Welsh Assembly, be "the focus of the nation”.

It will strengthen democratic control and make government more accountable to the people of England.

Enable the people of England to express their own priorities and direct spending where it is most needed.

Better enable the people of England to pursue policies which help preserve England’s identity and improve its environment.

For the first time give England a voice in the European Union

Provide a partial realisation of the right to self-government which the people of all countries aspire to.

15. Is there a demand for an English parliament?

We believe that there is overwhelming support in England, Scotland and Wales. There has been very little publicity or media coverage of the issue of an English Parliament, compared with the thousands of pounds spent by the UK Government on promoting Regional Assemblies. Nevertheless, an opinion poll carried out by NOP in April 2002 showed that in England 47% wanted an English Parliament, whereas only 28% said they wanted Regional Assemblies (25% don’t knows). Almost identical percentages in Scotland and Wales supported an English Parliament. Tellingly, the strongest support came from the 15 to 24 age group and from women voters.

On St. George's Day 2002 BBC Radio 2 invited listeners to ring in whether or not they supported an English Parliament. 94% (14,556 people) voting: Yes, the English should have their own parliament, and only 6% (930 people) voting: No, the English should not have their own parliament.

16. Will the creation of an English Parliament lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom?

On the contrary it will strengthen the Union. A union between partners is always stronger when each one is treated equally and fairly. At present the English are showing more and more resentment at the financial and political injustice they are suffering from the UK government. A glance at the website page "England Disadvantaged' illustrates it pretty adequately. It is this resentment that might prove to be the greatest threat to the Union. After all, economically, financially, politically and culturally England does not need union with either Scotland or Wales. England subsidises both. It provides both with a huge job market. It is in the best interests of the Union that the UK government acts quickly to restore fairness and justice within the United Kingdom and gives to England what it has so happily given to Scotland.

17. How will an English Parliament affect the relationship between England and the EU?

At present there is no relationship at all between England and the EU. There is however between the UK and the EU and between Scotland and the EU and between Wales and the EU. All three are represented in different ways at the EU. All three are recognised officially by the EU. The EU however, does not recognise England at all. We would refer you back to question and answer 5 of this section. The EU, which designated Scotland, Wales and the UK on its map of Europe, did not designate England on it at all until members of the CEP made them to by their representation. In the event that England gets its own parliament, the relationship between it and the EU will then be the same as that between Scotland and the EU. That relationship is to have official recognition within the EU, to have an office in the EU, to be able to make representation on behalf of the people of England as distinct from the rest of the UK and to receive and distribute EU subsidies and grants pertaining to England directly exactly as Scotland does. England qua England, after all, is and will remain with France and Germany one of the three biggest contributors to the EU budget.

www.thecep.org.uk

Edited May 14, 2005 by Blackleaf

[Subtemperate]

Ok, this topic is to be re-opened for constructive thought and discussion on the subject.

[Commander CMG]

I don't really know what to say about this but I am going to try an d put some input to it anyway.

I am from England and spend all of my spare time and our family Holidays in Scotland, we love the place, it would be a shame if everything was seperated into units, each country having their own parliaments as I feel the term United Kingdom would mean nothing, however if this was to happen and each country, Scotland and Wales etc were to go at alone they should do it properly with their own tax systems and generate their own income from their own people and be completely autonomous and not rely on England's tax payers.

I do think there is a big racial problem between England and Scotland.. Some of my best friends and old Ex Military buddies are Scottish and during the last world cup I was in Scotland with my family, in fact we were in my friends pub.. (Scots man) He would not show any England games on the TV and when I asked him why he simply stated he did not like them I am a Scotland supporter??? I replied and said that if England were knocked out before the Scotland I would follow and support the Scotland, (well actually I wouldn't I support Brazil) but no he was definite and told me that he hated the very though of giving any support to England and yet he is an Ex military man that has fought for England?

I think the English have less of a problem with the Scottish than they have of us? as for me I can't see what the problem is.

Edited May 16, 2005 by XSAS

[warden]

If you think you should have your own seperate parliment go for it ,i personally would like to see Britain staying as Britain

I call my self British before i call my self Scotish

I dont agree with scotish MSPs having a say on English matters when English MPs dont have a say in some of ours(a wee bit one -sided i think)

I wonder how long Scotland would last on her own ,and if it failed as an independant nation what then,do we go back on her hands and knees for forgivness or become a third world nation.

I would rather stick to what we have

[Scar]

The dislike for the English is born from the English believing their own hype. The English and the rest of the world view Britian and England the same. We dont exist or our existence is irrelvent in the grander scheme of things. Its constant even your newscasters refer to Britian as England not to mention your reports on figures in England & Wales, Why not go to the bother of telling us Northern Irelands figures or Scotlands ?

Anyway there is only 5 million of us,

What would the requirement be for West Minister ?

Im 1/2 Scottish, 1/4 English 1/4 Irish I hate that 1/4

I'd prefer Independant Scotland anyway, have your English parliment just brings us one step closer to detaching ourselves from the English Monarcy and stupid decisions

[Guest Lottie]

f you think you should have your own seperate parliment go for it ,i personally would like to see Britain staying as Britain

I call my self British before i call my self Scotish

I agree Warden, I see myself as British too.

I have never really thought about England having its own Parliament.

With the wealth and the benefits economically that England has, its hardly suprising so many Scots are down here, when, especially in the past there was more or less nothing to stay up in Scotland for.

Does it really matter how many Scots there are in Parliament? When it comes down to it we are all part of Great Britain. To start on this train of thought is it to segregate our country (meaning Great Britain) even further. Of course the other point is I doubt anyone could even call themselves completely English or completely Scottish nowadays anyway. I really do not see what the issue is.

Edited: My mistake I misrepresented what you said.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Lottie

[Commander CMG]

Like Warden said and I mentioned I like the United Kingdom title, I am British given a choice I would live in Scotland, seperate parliements would seperate and autonomy would ruin Britain both finacially and everthing we stand for.

[Tommy]

I think that the reason England has not been devolved is that there simply isn’t the drive for reform that was present in Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales.

Scotland had largely suffered under the Tories, who were a primarily an English party. This only served to increase the surge for independence there. The notion of having the ability to take control and have power over themselves, instead of being ‘governed’ from England was the appeal I think.

an opinion poll carried out by NOP in April 2002 showed that in England 47% wanted an English Parliament, whereas only 28% said they wanted Regional Assemblies (25% don’t knows).

If an opinion poll asked me if I wanted independence for England I would say ideally yes, as it would provide a Constitutionally fairer Union with everyone devolved, but I don’t think we ‘need’ one at the moment. If England were to be devolved I don’t know what the future would be like for the UK. Obviously Europe is one area open to expansion. Nations might want to integrate further into the EU. I think there would still be synergetic benefits for staying as a Union though.

Of course the other point is I doubt anyone could even call themselves completely English or completely Scottish nowadays anyway

I think you are right Lottie. In today’s multicultural world I think there is less of an emphasis on nationality as such, but I still feel England should be independently recognised.

“United we stand, divided we fall”

[Guest Lottie]

I think that the reason England has not been devolved is that there simply isn’t the drive for reform that was present in Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales. 

Scotland had largely suffered under the Tories, who were a primarily an English party.  This only served to increase the surge for independence there.  The notion of having the ability to take control and have power over themselves, instead of being ‘governed’ from England was the appeal I think.

623761[/snapback]

I agree. This is why I have never thought about England having a seperate Parliament because we are the wealthier of the country as a whole. There has been as you have said no need to push it.

If England were to be devolved I don’t know what the future would be like for the UK.  

I cannot see how economically any of us could cope. Scotland would be worse off if England devolved as would Wales. Most of the wealth is accumulated here in England, what does Scotland or Wales have that can bring in this kind of resource? Apart from England. For example, the main Import and Export Trade is from England.

I still feel England should be independently recognised.

I think England has always been independently recognised anyway even though we are not independent, again because of the wealth down here.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Lottie

[Scar]

You what ?

If Scotland was Independant sd would have the North Sea gas & Oil reserves, we would have large tourist industry Whisky exports are pretty high.

There is only 5 million of us remember. Im sure there is a report done independently by Mackay Consultants about Scottish independance which Stated that

Aberdeen becoming a real oil and gas capital having most powerful Energy Department in Europe

Glasgow becoming a media centre

Edinburgh becoming a real capital city, ministries, embassies, etc

All these would generate jobs and Income that woudl provide a pretty healthy Econmy for a country as small as say Ireland or Norway.

We dont need England, Its that kind of talk that spurns Hatred

Edited May 16, 2005 by Scar

[Guest Lottie]

You what ?

If Scotland was Independant sd would have the North Sea gas & Oil reserves, we would have large tourist industry Whisky exports are pretty high.

623809[/snapback]

The toursit industry is going to be no different whether Scotland is independent or not. Whisky exports are more or less it...

There is only 5 million of us remember. Im sure there is a report done independently by Mackay Consultants about Scottish independance which Stated that

Aberdeen becoming a real oil and gas capital having most powerful Energy Department in Europe

Glasgow becoming a media centre

Edinburgh becoming a real capital city, ministries, embassies, etc

All these would generate jobs and Income that woudl provide a pretty healthy Econmy for a country as small as say Ireland or Norway.

This is all fantastic and the goverment are finally putting money into Scotland but its going to take a long time for Scotlands economy to pick up. Right now and for sometime ahead I really cannot see Scotland making it on its own... its just my view.

We dont need England, Its that kind of talk that spurns Hatred

Yes and its also that whole blinded mentality that 'We don't need England' that creates barriers also. I am not spurning anything its just the way I see things as someone who lives in England whose roots are Scottish.

I would love nothing more than for more money and more resources to be poured into Scotland, its been blatantly overlooked for decades. Having lived in England for most my life and having personal knowledge of Scotland this is just my view. I am seeing this from a different angle.

[Blackleaf]

Also, why do English taxpayers have to pay for services that are only used in Scotland?

Isn't about time that only the people of Scotland paid for those things, instead of English taxpayers having to pay for services that they don't use? An equivalent thing elsewhere would be for the French to pay taxes for the Health Service, etc, of Belgium.

What's wrong with this Government?

[Blackleaf]

You what ?

If Scotland was Independant sd would have the North Sea gas & Oil reserves, we would have large tourist industry Whisky exports are pretty high.

623809[/snapback]

The toursit industry is going to be no different whether Scotland is independent or not. Whisky exports are more or less it...

There is only 5 million of us remember. Im sure there is a report done independently by Mackay Consultants about Scottish independance which Stated that

Aberdeen becoming a real oil and gas capital having most powerful Energy Department in Europe

Glasgow becoming a media centre

Edinburgh becoming a real capital city, ministries, embassies, etc

All these would generate jobs and Income that woudl provide a pretty healthy Econmy for a country as small as say Ireland or Norway.

This is all fantastic and the goverment are finally putting money into Scotland but its going to take a long time for Scotlands economy to pick up. Right now and for sometime ahead I really cannot see Scotland making it on its own... its just my view.

We dont need England, Its that kind of talk that spurns Hatred

Yes and its also that whole blinded mentality that 'We don't need England' that creates barriers also. I am not spurning anything its just the way I see things as someone who lives in England whose roots are Scottish.

I would love nothing more than for more money and more resources to be poured into Scotland, its been blatantly overlooked for decades. Having lived in England for most my life and having personal knowledge of Scotland this is just my view. I am seeing this from a different angle.

623900[/snapback]

Three points -

1) What do you mean "the goverment are finally putting money into Scotland"? For YEARS and YEARS the British Government has been spending MORE, per capita, on things like Health, Education, Transport etc etc in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than England. So how do you mean the Government is FINALLY putting money into Scotland? It's a well-known fact that the Government, for years, has been spending more money, per person, on Scotland than England.

2) As an Englishwoman, are you happy to pay taxes for services that are used in Scotland and Scotland only? Shouldn't just the Scots pay towards their own health Service, etc?

3) Is it okay for Scottish MP's to debate over EVERY English only political matter (matters that don't concern them), when English MP's are not allowed to debate over most matters that concern just Scotland? Does it not anger you when top-up fees were rejected in Scotland (by just SCOTTISH politicians in the Scottish Parliament and no-one else), but when the debate arrived on whether or not to introduce top-up fees in England, the English MP's all voted that they didn't want top-up fees but it was overturned by SCOTTISH MP's, and thanks to them we now have top-up fees?

Why should Scottish politicians tell the English (who voted against top-up fees) whether or not we should have top-up fees (and that made us have them) when English MP's weren't allowed to vote in whether or not Scotland has top-up fees because that's a job for the Scottish Parliament?

If we had an English Parliament we wouldn't have no top-up fees now because we wouldn't have interfering Scottish MP's voting for top-up fees in England (when they voted against it in Scotland) even though English MP's voted against it.

It's not fair and it's not democratic.

[wunarmdscissor]

oh come on dont be naive.

UNder the tories scotland was screwed over continually.

The demise of the shipping industry was due to the english industries gettin preference because maggie knew she couldnt win the vote. that goes for most of the major industries that collapsed ins cotland.

The fact that the poll tax was introduced in scotland and NOWHERE else shows that scotland was the guinea pig for unwanted proposals.

The oil revenue was ploughed back into ENGLISH enterprises not scottish .

The shipping industries where destroyed by conessions that the tories made to foreign governments to make a quick buck for the english not the scottish.

These are just some of the reasons why scotland has a higher tax burder. the country was run into the ground , thats why.

In any case im not so sure your corrct about this tax burden, im going to agree for the moment because my research isnt up to scratch , however on Radio 2 recently i heard something entirely different, ill endeavour to find out exactly what it was they were saying.

[dAz]

The toursit industry is going to be no different whether Scotland is independent or not. Whisky exports are more or less it...

I don't entirely agree with you there. The SNP for example proposed that with an Independent Scotland and I quote:

..."will have at its disposal the powers to make Scotland a more competitive place to do business, for example the power to cut business taxes."

Which in my opinion would have an HUGE effect on tourism.

As for summarizing Scotland's exports as "Whisky exports are more or less it... " is just ignorance.

Scotland has a other industries such as agriculture, fishing, textiles, oil fabrication as well as Whisky production and tourism. I'm sure there are plenty more. All of these industries would / could play a HUGE part in Scotland independence.

[dAz]

And if all else fails we can always rely on our water supplies to fall back on when other certain countries run out.

[Scar]

Who the hell is that Guy ?

Obviously I agree with this Stranger

[dAz]

Who the hell is that Guy ?

Obviously I agree with this Stranger 

624503[/snapback]

This from the man who dissapeared without a trace for near 3 months.

[wunarmdscissor]

daz has been around for more than a while lol.

Didnt you help set the site up daz?

[Scar]

*Slap*

Aye Wun I dinae know him

You remember me ?

Member in the Chat room Me, dAz, Thistle, Saruman used to be there all the time ?

[Guest Lottie]

Three points -

1)  What do you mean "the goverment are finally putting money into Scotland"?  For YEARS and YEARS the British Government has been spending MORE, per capita, on things like Health, Education, Transport etc etc in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than England.  So how do you mean the Government is FINALLY putting money into Scotland?  It's a well-known fact that the Government, for years, has been spending more money, per person, on Scotland than England.

624280[/snapback]

I am not sure where you are getting your information from but the Tories completely messed up Scotland for years while they were in power. Scotland is the poorest place in the UK. For example, Have you ever been to Glasgow? BEFORE the money started being funded there? Glasgow is where my Father grew up, where my family grew up and I tell you something the people there had nothing, some have nothing still. The most likely career you would have at that point in time would be picking litter off streets. Scotland in the past has always been severely over looked.

2)  As an Englishwoman, are you happy to pay taxes for services that are used in Scotland and Scotland only?  Shouldn't just the Scots pay towards their own health Service, etc?

Correction I am British. I am not bothered about taxes in Scotland. Scotland is part of Great Britain. It is not a country outside of us, the Scots are not illegal aliens. I don't see the issue.

[warden]

And hear was Wun telling me last week that since labour have came to power there is no poverty in Glasgow,he has seen it from his nice side of the city looking over to the slums

It may be a little better in certain parts of Scotland since labour have came to power and we have set up our own parliment but we have a long long way to go ,poverty is still a massive problem that has been ignored by both parties in the past

And that from some one who is proud to call him self BRITISH

[Tommy]

I don't think it is if Scotland could survive without England as the reason for a totally independent Scotland, as of course it could to a certain degree. It is more if Scotland can build on and sustain a standard of living it will be happy with, without funding from the UK government. Some are keen to point out that Scotland has some of the poorest regions in the UK, but I don’t think these will be solved with it becoming a totally independent State.

When North Sea Oil was discovered in the mid 1960s, it gave Scotland the hope that indeed it could be economically viable to become separate and no longer rely on the UK government. However recent evidence suggests that North Sea Oil production has passed its peak, so I don’t think Scotland would be able to depend too much on that as a stable factor for independence.

I don't entirely agree with you there. The SNP for example proposed that with an Independent Scotland and I quote:

..."will have at its disposal the powers to make Scotland a more competitive place to do business, for example the power to cut business taxes."

Which in my opinion would have an HUGE effect on tourism

lol daz, unless people will pay to go on holiday to see new Scottish firms setting up. Having the power to reduce corporation tax would provide a lot of flexibility to the Scottish economy, as many companies will see it as a more desirable place to set up. I’ve used these examples before, but Ireland saw huge increased in investment with its low rate of 12.5% corporation tax. The UK’s rate is currently 30%, so Scotland could see a large increase in investment, but I don't think it would influence tourism.

Scar I think I found that report you mentioned, but by the looks of it it’s a few years old. (before Scotland was devolved I think) so I don’t know how many of the arguments will still hold.

ARTICLES HERE

When we talk about devolution however it doesn’t mean that the UK will cease to exist. Only the principle of 'subsidiarity', that power is being delegated to be closer to the people it rules over. The United Kingdom will still be a recognised entity, however the UK Parliament will have less emphasis on more regional specific issues, and greater influence in matters regarding the UK as a whole. For example macro-economic policies, immigration, health etc.

I don’t like the way the government has tried to side-step the issue of English devolution by trying to introduce these regional assemblies. If the Constitution is to be fair on all nations then England would have to be devolved. Creating yet another level of Government in these regional assembles and abolishing local councils seems to be a bit of a waste of time I think.

Also, why do English taxpayers have to pay for services that are only used in Scotland?

Isn't about time that only the people of Scotland paid for those things, instead of English taxpayers having to pay for services that they don't use? An equivalent thing elsewhere would be for the French to pay taxes for the Health Service, etc, of Belgium.

What's wrong with this Government?

Well I touched on this in the other thread, but your argument on why English taxes shouldn’t be used in Scotland I don’t think is a very good one. Surely living in any kind of Union you have to respect the fact that wealth has to be redistributed, otherwise what would be the point of taxing people if it won’t be used in areas that need it? It is exactly the same in the EU, where countries contribute about 1.2% of their GNP, which for the UK works out to be about £2.5 billion. While the French may not pay for ‘health services’ in Belgium, you can be sure that they do subsidise a part of their structural operations (roads, infrastructure etc..), which accounts for 34% of the EU budget.

Info on EU budget

HERE'S a comprehensive economic profile of Scotland (pdf file) if anyone’s interested, pointing out that health above all has to be invested in if Scotland is to start enjoying a better standard of living.

[dAz]

lol daz, unless people will pay to go on holiday to see new Scottish firms setting up.    Having the power to reduce corporation tax would provide a lot of flexibility to the Scottish economy, as many companies will see it as a more desirable place to set up.  I’ve used these examples before, but Ireland saw huge increased in investment with its low rate of 12.5% corporation tax.  The UK’s rate is currently 30%, so Scotland could see a large increase in investment, but I don't think it would influence tourism.

You'd be surprised what some tourists will pay to see LOL

But seriously I was actually refereing to the businesses and attractions which rely for the most part on tourist trade. These businesses and attractions that would benefit from cuts in taxes would have extra cash at their disposal. Which in turn could be used for investments such as expansions and generally improving whatever attractions / services they offer. In the long run (hopefully) generating more revenue.