It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain wants UK break up, poll shows

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   


The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border.

poll results

A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.




www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml



[edit on 26-11-2006 by infinite]




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
A sad, sad day.

However, I would warn against reading too deeply into this. Do this poll again in twelve months' time and I think the results would be different - the Scottish Parliament elections next year may have something to do with the results.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Its got nothing to do with the Scottish elections, its down to the growing English Nationalism. The population of England is 50 million, the largest in the Union, England have the ability to break up the Union. No one else. And this is what we are seeing in Britain, England wants out. I reckon it will happen within 5 years, then we will allow become Republics i think because i do not reckon no one will keep the Monarchy.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
If the SNP win in the elections they are pledged to bring an independence bill at Holyrood within their first 100 days in power.
We will gain our independence one way or another.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I don't think the Scottish Parliament has the power to declare Scotland an independent nation - it'd have to go through Westminister and the Queen would have to give her assent to the Bill. It is also possible that the central UK Government could block the proposal at Holyrood because the power of the Scottish Parliament is devolved from the UK Parliament - legally the UK Parliament can intervene.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
The main question is how would London react if Scotland did declare independece?



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Interesting question.

Difficult to answer - But it's not just London that needs to be considered. It's the rest of the UK (including Scottish people) and how they would react.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
It's the ebb and flo of the hypothetical IMO, inconsequential political games and nothing more.

Not long ago Alec Salmond (the SNP leader) was being publicly embarrassed by having to admit that when actually faced with the choice most Scots would not vote for independence.

What people might tell a pollster in the street is nothing like the same as a proper and considered refendum result when all sides have had the time to run serious campaigns and put before the people their case.

This stuff is OK for watching trends but it doesn't really mean that much right now IMO.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Issue:
Its got nothing to do with the Scottish elections, its down to the growing English Nationalism. The population of England is 50 million, the largest in the Union, England have the ability to break up the Union. No one else. And this is what we are seeing in Britain, England wants out. I reckon it will happen within 5 years, then we will allow become Republics I think because I do not reckon no one will keep the Monarchy.



posted by sminkeypinkey

It's the ebb and flow of the hypothetical IMO, inconsequential political games and nothing more. Not long ago Alec Salmond (the SNP leader) was being publicly embarrassed by having to admit that when actually faced with the choice most Scots would not vote for independence.

What people might tell a pollster in the street is nothing like the same as a proper and considered referendum result when all sides have had the time to run serious campaigns and put before the people their case. This stuff is OK for watching trends but it doesn't really mean that much right now IMO.



You cannot believe the mess we live in over here. Look at Katrina and the New Orleans debacle. More than 1000 people died, most of them after the storm ended. In NO, we are seeing criminal charges against the last doctor standing, that she euthanized a dozen old people on life support systems when the hospital’s stand-by power failed and getting prompt aid seemed impossible.

Prosecutors over here are elected and the NO persecutor sees bigger things in his future. I don’t know whether she did or didn’t but if I was the prosecutor I could find much better problems to deal with. Like corruption.

The blame game. With divided power goes divided responsibility. With a Federal government being run by people who are philosophically opposed to a strong Federal government, you can see there will be as little help as the law will allow them to prepare for and to furnish. There are still more than 10,000 FEMA house trailers setting in vacant lots that are not in use. They are new, and have never been in use. Can you imagine how much the taxpayers paid for those trailers and how much they are paying someone to park those units? And the trailers are not weathering well. By 2007, they will be sold for salvage.

We had a Democratic governor of Louisiana, and a Democratic mayor of New Orleans, and a vindictive Republican president and Ken Brown of FEMA. So who is responsible for a natural calamity? A lot of blame was put on the Corps of Engineers, a Federal agency. Very old. Highly regarded, but severely underfunded by Congress. Republicans love this because it causes the public to think - if think is the right word - that government itself is failing. Say hello more and more privatizing of public functions.

It is not government that fails, it is the administrators of government but we use the words government and administrant interchangeably. To our ultimate disaster. Here I sit wanting to abolish the United States Senate, and to put judges and prosecutors back on the appointed list, off the elected list. Too many people to vote for is worse than too few to vote for. Believe me. I’m from Jefferson County - no not every county is named for him - and we had an elected chief executive officer called “County Judge.” He did not have to be a licensed attorney.

He was too busy to sit in court, so he would appoint 15 or so lawyers to be commissioners who were commonly called “judge.” We had a judicial reform state constitutional amendment which put all judges on the ballot. Now the voters must elect 23 lower court judges every 4 years. 23. At least the old system the appointing authority had to pick some competent people, now you can have all 23 unsuited to sit. What a throwback! Look hard before you change what you have. You can go from bad to worse! Change for change sake is not always good.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Quite interesting infinite...

I think any change will probably wait until Queen Elizabeth II dies. I'm certainly no expert at British politics, but that seems a natural time to make big changes, especially since the prospect of a King Charles and Queen Camilla doesn't seem very attractive in more ways than one
.

Is there any possibility of a federal system where England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are like U.S. states under a federal government in London (or some federal district somewhere), with a constitution to specify the rights and responsibilittes of both the state and federal government? Or do you just think England and Scotland just want to become totally separate nation-states?



[edit on 11/26/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Thanks for those posts, donwhite and djohnsto77. Very interesting and raise some important points to consider.

As for the federal system, it's possible as a compromise. Though I really am not keen on the idea, I find it more palatable than the break-up of the UK. But again, it'd be hasty to act on this now... probably worth seeing how things play out for a little while.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
May I digress?
The recent election will change America very little. In the House, the Dems have 225 seats - 218 needed for a majority - and may win several more as 5 seats are still in dispute. Hey, we’re not all that good in running elections. We’re a lot better at telling others how to do it. In the Senate, the Dems have 50, plus 1 independent (from Vermont) who votes with the Dems, which gives them the right to “organize” the Senate and as is also the case in the House. The Dems will set the agenda and . up the committees which are the vehicles through which the Congress works. The Legislative Branch is often referred to as the Article I branch.

The Executive Branch - Article II - runs the war and in the arena of war, the president is designated as Commander in Chief or our Armed Forces. But not our Lord Protector as Bush43 seems to think. Any enactment of Congress can be vetoed by the president. It takes a 2/3rds vote of both chambers to over-ride the veto. Unlikely.

There are a total of 5 Delegates to the House from DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Pacific Territories, who are treated as if full fledged members in all but one regard, they cannot vote on the floor on the passage of any bill or law. They do vote in committees and chair some sub-committees.

Because we have fixed election dates, we are already beginning the long and I hope interesting walk or race to the 2008 election. Already two dozen hopefuls have indicated in one way or another they are “interested” in the ‘08 race.

We have virtually written third parties out of the electoral process. It is true that Ralph Nader’s Green Party cost the Dems the 2000 election, on my assumption most Greens would have voted Dem but for and for which outcome he will not be forgiven in this life. While third parties can spoil elections, they cannot win them. They spoiled the 1912 election, and the 2000, but failed in 1948 as also in 1992. Perhaps they won in 1860? There are usually a half dozen parties that appear on some ballots - we have no national ballot - but we call them “fringe” parties and they get almost zero media exposure.


[edit on 11/26/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Just to put this into context there's a decent piece about the history of this issue here -


I know all about the opinion polls.

You’ll forgive me my skepticism. You need a long memory in this game. So I’ve seen it all before.

A decade ago, in the summer of 1998, the SNP were supposedly riding high in the opinion polls.

Two decades ago, after the Govan by-election we heard Jim Sillars’ infamous boast of ‘Free by 93’.

Three decades ago there was the General Election of 1974 after which the SNP was supposedly ‘On the march’ to Separation.

And what happened? The Bubble burst.

he supposedly unstoppable march of the SNP during the 1970s ended almost as soon as it began.
The boast of ‘Free by 93’ was replaced by “we’ll try again in 2010”
And, most recently, Labour won a resounding victory in the first Scottish Parliament elections in 1999 - and won again in 2003.

www.scottishlabour.org.uk...h2006oban/



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I would like to see Scotland independant just so they realise how much they rely on England to survive. They get huge amounts of cash from the HM Treasury, without which, they would not be able to afford to allow no tuition fees, or run their health service or education.

England, on the other hand, would be largely unaffected.

My own personal feelings are that if NI, Scotland and Wales can have their own assemblies, then why cannot England. I think that is where alot of English resentment is stemming from.

They (the Scottish) have their own Parliament and laws which we cannot vote on, but they can vote on ours in Westminster.

Thats BS



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
They get huge amounts of cash from the HM Treasury, without which, they would not be able to afford to allow no tuition fees, or run their health service or education.


- It's all how you do the accountancy stu.

If you compare 'like with like' (which almost never happens) the spending is not so different.
Rural English spending is very similar to Scottish spending (the Scottish areas being mostly rural and relatively sparsely populated).

The truth is that England would not have spent several centuries at huge cost fighting to establish the Union if it was just a case of cost to England and England permanently paying out.

There are huge savings and economic benefits for England that the 'normal accountancy' doesn't show.

(Things like no customs or border controls between the 4 'home Nations'; the use of £ Sterling across the whole UK or the common tax system and all 'British' economic activity operating through an English/London exchequer across the whole territory, for instance......even including all of Ireland until very very recently......and even now Irish linkage by trade to the UK economy is huge.)

You'll also find that the Scots pay a higher % of the total UK tax take than a straight % of population would suggest.

Like I said, this is a game of statistics and depending on one's POV one can try and prove almost anything......but the singular truth of it all is obvious and clear, England would not have spent so long and at such vast cost if it was a drain on England.
The rest is petty politicking.


England, on the other hand, would be largely unaffected.


- That's simply not true.

The break-up of the Union would bring such deep and profound change to all concerned that it would be felt for decades and take decades to get over fully (and God knows what effects that which was put in it's place would have).


My own personal feelings are that if NI, Scotland and Wales can have their own assemblies, then why cannot England.


- No one has ever said different.
England can have it's own Parliament/Assembly.

In fact it has been the openly stated policy of this Gov for years that England does so.

What England can't have is the Westminster (the UK Parliament).

This is the twist and lie some have sought to spread and use as grounds for saying England's Parliament/Assembly has been denied.
It hasn't.

But the Westminster Parliament is the UK Parliament; if you want to destroy the UK then by all means try and take the Westminster Parliament for England's own......but if you do care about a 'UK' at all it would probably be the surest way of destroying the UK.

The plain truth is that for all the noise and heat in this discussion England does not seem too bothered about her own Parliament.
Nor even central Gov devolving powers down to more powerful and local 'regional Assemblies', to date.


I think that is where alot of English resentment is stemming from.


- Naaaa, I reckon a lot of the resentment is coming from those spreading a distortion of the truth.

It also has to be recognised as the bit of a tory rear-guard action that it is.
Hence the inevitable and regular support and moaning of people like the Daily Mail and Telegraph about this issue.
They like to pretend that if only England could be more 'independent' it would be much more right-wing & tory, if only it wasn't for all those pesky Scots and Welsh.


They (the Scottish) have their own Parliament and laws which we cannot vote on, but they can vote on ours in Westminster.

Thats BS


- When England says it wants it's own Parliament then those matters will be properly devolved, exactly as happens in Scotland, Wales and (hopefully) NI.

Until they go for their won Parliament/Assembly and those matters are devolved then they must stay at the Westminster UK Parliament and are the fair and proper business of every MP sent there from every part of the UK.

There's no way the tory party (or anyone else trying to sneak this through) is going to be allowed to hijack Westminster and end up with 'English MP's only' business.
Westminster is the UK Parliament it is not the English Parliament.

It is interesting that so many of the people who claim this to be so anti-democratic now didn't give tuppence when it was 0 tory MPs in Scotland and yet Scotland was being 'ruled' by a tory majority of English MPs at Westminster, right?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I swear I read that virtually word for word in the Sun today.
How about crediting the reporter fo his hard work Sminkey.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by executioner
I swear I read that virtually word for word in the Sun today.


- Bl**dy cheek!

If it's in today's Sun then produce a link to the article - if you can!


(seriously that has me feeling very uneasy, if you're not kidding then produce I'd be interested)

Edit to add
Check the dates.
I wrote that yesterday 26/11/2007 (there is no sunday Sun).
Please, produce the link cos it looks like one of Rupey's boys owes me a credit & some freelancer's dosh.



How about crediting the reporter fo his hard work Sminkey.


- I do when I use a source.
In this case I didn't.
At all.

Sorry but those were all my own musings executioner, not a copy of the Sun in sight.

(I will now have to have a long lie down and consult my Dr. if you are seriously claiming my stuff read like something out of The Sun.

.....and you're seriously saying that 'The Sun' put the case against or gave space for someone else to put the case against an English nationalist fav topic.......a topic they themselves have previously championed!?
Wow things must have changed since I last looked!)

[edit on 27-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
HAHAHAHA

Sorry, Smink. I have to laugh. If true, that will be the equivalent of Seekerof declaring that Hugo Chavez is his hero and how much he wants to vote Dem at the next election.

Smink and the Sun with the same views....



(It may have been the News of the World, which is the "Sunday Sun"



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Smink and the Sun with the same views....


- Jebus H. Creeaaast.

You can understand why the colour drained from my face!


It's a lie, I tells ye!


You'll be having me down as a member of the tory party next.


[edit on 27-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
If I'm wrong I humbly apologise Sminkey.
I've checked the Suns web page and it aint there.
I may have read your post this morning, read the paper at work came home and read your post again and erroniously accused you of plaigerism.
If that is the case then could you please give me a hand removing my size 10 from my mouth.


[edit on 27/11/06 by executioner]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join