[POLL] Should Scotland be an independent country?

[penfold_99]

I don't mind if they get more power - as long as the English (etc) do as well.

 

In Dave's speech he talked about the West Lothian question and said something a long this line of what powers Scotland get England with get as well.

 

Westminster should become the English parliament and a new UK parliament should be created with proportional representation and where england doesn't hold more then 50% of the seats.

 

The UK parliament (which should be small ie sub 300 people ) could be held in each country's parliament in an annual rotation.

[tmcd35]

In Dave's speech he talked about the West Lothian question and said something a long this line of what powers Scotland get England with get as well.

 

Not quite, DC said English MP's should decide English matters.

 

Westminster should become the English parliament and a new UK parliament should be created with proportional representation and where england doesn't hold more then 50% of the seats.

 

Unlikely, at least under a Tory government. William Hague this morning, who has been put in charge of the West Lothian question, was quick to steer the conversation away from an additional parliament with extra costs that might entail.

[Norphy]

a new UK parliament should be created with proportional representation and where england doesn't hold more then 50% of the seats.

 

Surely that's mutually exclusive? The current population of the UK is ~64million. England has around 53 million of those people, around 82%. (Figures from wikipedia). How could we have proportional representation when England can't hold more than 50% of the seats?

[penfold_99]

Surely that's mutually exclusive? The current population of the UK is ~64million. England has around 53 million of those people, around 82%. (Figures from wikipedia). How could we have proportional representation when England can't hold more than 50% of the seats?

 

Each nation would have a fixed number of seated. eg

England = 150

Scotland = 75

Wales = 50

Northern Ireland = 25

 

The proportional representation part is how people are elected to those seat. A bit like how MEPs are elected.

[localzuk]

Each nation would have a fixed number of seated. eg

England = 150

Scotland = 75

Wales = 50

Northern Ireland = 25

 

The proportional representation part is how people are elected to those seat. A bit like how MEPs are elected.

 

Those numbers make no sense. Why should the smaller countries have so much say when they don't have that many people to go with it?

 

Using population as a guide, the numbers should be something like:

 

England: 251

Scotland: 25

Wales: 15

Northern Ireland: 9

[CAM]

In Dave's speech he talked about the West Lothian question and said something a long this line of what powers Scotland get England with get as well.

 

Westminster should become the English parliament and a new UK parliament should be created with proportional representation and where england doesn't hold more then 50% of the seats.

 

The UK parliament (which should be small ie sub 300 people ) could be held in each country's parliament in an annual rotation.

 

So pay for 4 MP extra homes instead of one?

[penfold_99]

Those numbers make no sense. Why should the smaller countries have so much say when they don't have that many people to go with it?

 

Using population as a guide, the numbers should be something like:

 

England: 251

Scotland: 25

Wales: 15

Northern Ireland: 9

 

If you did that then nothing would change as you would have the same issues you have now, being governed by a government you didn't elect (except for england).

Remember its a union of 4 nations there need to be consensus.

[localzuk]

If you did that then nothing would change as you would have the same issues you have now, being governed by a government you didn't elect (except for england).

Remember its a union of 4 nations there need to be consensus.

 

OK. I understand your point, but my counterpoint is simply this - why should a minority have so much more weight to their voices than those of the majority? Why do Scottish views, per person, come out as more important than those of the English, per person?

[localzuk]

I'm more of a fan of regionalisation instead - the local parliaments of NI/Wales/Scotland cover a few million people each. We should chop England up into a bunch of similarly sized regions too. Maybe along the same lines as the historic county lines?

 

Then, we choose a location to be the "federal capital".

[SovietRussia]

If you did that then nothing would change as you would have the same issues you have now, being governed by a government you didn't elect (except for england).

Remember its a union of 4 nations there need to be consensus.

 

Being governed by a government you didn't elect is called democracy. I'd rather that than not voting at all.

[penfold_99]

I'm more of a fan of regionalisation instead - the local parliaments of NI/Wales/Scotland cover a few million people each. We should chop England up into a bunch of similarly sized regions too. Maybe along the same lines as the historic county lines?

 

Then, we choose a location to be the "federal capital".

 

This is what happens in Germany but as those regions were previously nation states some are thinking about independence again.

[penfold_99]

Being governed by a government you didn't elect is called democracy. I'd rather that than not voting at all.

 

Agrred. Please can you have a word with Alex Salmonds then to set him straight?

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I'm more of a fan of regionalisation instead - the local parliaments of NI/Wales/Scotland cover a few million people each. We should chop England up into a bunch of similarly sized regions too. Maybe along the same lines as the historic county lines?

 

Then, we choose a location to be the "federal capital".

 

London could become a city state in it own right.

[localzuk]

This is what happens in Germany but as those regions were previously nation states some are thinking about independence again.

 

Go back far enough, and we had a pile of different Kingdoms, which were effectively nations.

[penfold_99]

OK. I understand your point, but my counterpoint is simply this - why should a minority have so much more weight to their voices than those of the majority? Why do Scottish views, per person, come out as more important than those of the English, per person?

 

To flip your point, Why is the Scottish view less important then that of English?

 

Your missing the point by basing it on people instead of nations.

 

Nations have people, wealth and resources etc and collectively they have a value, this value will equate to the number of seats.

Its not solely based on the number of people.

[penfold_99]

Go back far enough, and we had a pile of different Kingdoms, which were effectively nations.

 

True, but that was the best part of 1000+ years ago. Germany didn't come into being until 1814.

[localzuk]

To flip your point, Why is the Scottish view less important then that of English?

 

It isn't. Proportionally it is worth exactly the same amount.

 

Your missing the point by basing it on people instead of nations.

 

Nations are arbitrary. Why base it on nations, and not, say, tribes/clans/kingdoms? Or, how many houses an area has?

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

True, but that was the best part of 1000+ years ago. Germany didn't come into being until 1814.

 

So, it only matters if it were in the last 200 years? Another random/arbitrary line.

[penfold_99]

It isn't. Proportionally it is worth exactly the same amount.

 

Proportionally how? as its 1 nation's view versus another nations view.

[localzuk]

Proportionally how? as its 1 nation's view versus another nations view.

 

By the people within them. Why should 5 million Scots have as much say as, using your proposed figures, around 28 million English people? A nation is an arbitrary boundary. Number of people isn't abitrary.

[SovietRussia]

Federalisation with the Monarchy has been done (Canada, Australia) just next is the UK!

[penfold_99]

So, it only matters if it were in the last 200 years? Another random/arbitrary line.

 

Is probably easier (pure guess work here) to divide a nation that was more recently separate than one that wasn't.

[penfold_99]

By the people within them. Why should 5 million Scots have as much say as, using your proposed figures, around 28 million English people? A nation is an arbitrary boundary. Number of people isn't abitrary.

 

Using your logic we should be rule in rotation by China and India. We should also give up our seat on the UN security council as why is our voice worth more than the rest of the world?

[penfold_99]

So pay for 4 MP extra homes instead of one?

 

Nah, just charter a ryanair plane.

As a bonus, it will educate them on how the other half have to fly.

[Hefferzzzz]

On the plus side. Salmond has now resigned as SNP leader.

 

Dont let the door hit you on the way out!

[pcstru]

On the plus side. Salmond has now resigned as SNP leader.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out!

A politician who steps up and takes responsibility for his failure to deliver the change by resigning as first minister. Yea, that is something to discourage and disrespect.

[Hefferzzzz]

A politician who steps up and takes responsibility for his failure to deliver the change by resigning as first minister. Yea, that is something to discourage and disrespect.

 

I know you were very much a 'Yes' voter but the truth is the guy never had a clue what was going on. He had no grasp of the facts and when confronted with the truth resorted to shouting 'liar liar pants on fire'

 

yea, just the sort of politician we need more of