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.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by JuniorDisco
I think Helen raises a good point though. I think that the official figures will not include many Citizens that have a British Passport, which can be acheived within 3 years of living in Britain.
Originally posted by HelenConway
Look disco can you please get back on topic and if you want to take your grievances about London's ethnic mix take it on to another thread. This discussion is about a parliament for England.
Otherwise you are trolling.
The main findings are:
• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only have been 9 years out of the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have been in surplus.
• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year of surplus was in 1988-89 and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland.
• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81.
Originally posted by grainofsand
My gosh, such an interesting rush of comments here while I've been at work.
Rather than individually quoting the posts which I felt needed a response I shall address the two which seem the most important to my discussions in the OP.
Again, a claim has been made that England needs the Scottish oil.
Previously I posted this report by the Governments Scotland Office:
www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk...
The main findings are:
• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only have been 9 years out of the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have been in surplus.
• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year of surplus was in 1988-89 and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland.
• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81.
This clearly makes a different case. As this has obviously been ignored or missed by readers of this thread, I would ask that if anyone disagrees with it then they need to provide a source to support their claims. If no such effort is made to counteract my case then it can only be held to be mere assertion on the posters part.
Another claim made, effectively that the English taxpayer has to accept extra per capita subsidy/funding due to the rural nature of Scotland.
Again, previously in this thread I provided a useful link showing the population density demographics of the UK.
Map here>> www.guardian.co.uk...
I also asked the question why an equally rural and poor area of the UK, the South West of England where I live has to subsidise Scotland?
Why is the spending per capita on SW England residents just £8588 compared to £10212 for residents of Scotland?
If anyone is passionate about this justification for poor rural areas of England having to subsidise Scotland, then again, please counter my examples with quoted sources, or reports to support your argument.
Assertions in this thread are deeply misleading without any attempt to support the various claims.
I do not claim to be absolutely correct in everything I raise in this thread, however I do make the effort to provide reading to support my claims. I am more than happy to reconsider my views if presented with some evidence to do so, but unsupported assertions are unhelpful to honest debate about serious constitutional issues.
That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?
That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.
It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.
These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.
Scotland leaving the union is irrelevant to this discussion and there is a separate thread currently running where you can ask party political questions about the Tory intentions.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?
That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.
It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.
These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.
It's not irrelevant, if England wanted their own Parliament they would have it! Why don't they? That's the question.
Looking into this question will also answer the question of distribution of English taxes. It's all linked, undoubtedly.
Originally posted by grainofsand
Scotland leaving the union is irrelevant to this discussion and there is a separate thread currently running where you can ask party political questions about the Tory intentions.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?
That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.
It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.
These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.
It's not irrelevant, if England wanted their own Parliament they would have it! Why don't they? That's the question.
Looking into this question will also answer the question of distribution of English taxes. It's all linked, undoubtedly.
If you scan back to page 11 you will find the most recent poll results showing 49% of English voters wanting an English parliament and 34% so far undecided.
If you do not wish to adhere to the specifics of this thread I shall not respond to your off-topic comments.
My position is clear and my questions and concerns are equally clear, with supporting links from various sources. Your unrelated questions and assertions remain irrelevant to this specific debate.edit on 31-1-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo, again.
Because Scottish independence is clearly a separate constitutional issue unrelated to my comments in the OP.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
How is Scotland leaving the Union irrelevant to a debate about whether England should have it's own Parliament?
It is pretty clear in the OP and every other poster so far has been able to understand that. If you were unable to from the original post and subsequent pages then I would suggest that is your own fault. Now you understand it though it is time for you to remain on-topic.
If you mean a devolved Parliament then you should have said so in your OP!!!
Again, another unsubstantiated assertion on your part.
As for 49% of English voter's wanting an English Parliament, if the Torries don't want it it wont happen!
Originally posted by grainofsand
Because Scottish independance is clearly a separate constitutional issue unrelated to my comments in the OP.
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
How is Scotland leaving the Union irrelevant to a debate about whether England should have it's own Parliament?
It is pretty clear in the OP and every other poster so far has been able to understand that. If you were unable to from the original post and subsequent pages then I would suggest that is your own fault. Now you understand it though it is time for you to remain on-topic.
If you mean a devolved Parliament then you should have said so in your OP!!!
No it's not clear, do you think im psychic? If you wanted it to be clear you should have said it in the OP instead of trying to back track!
Again, another unsubstantiated assertion on your part.
As for 49% of English voter's wanting an English Parliament, if the Torries don't want it it wont happen!
Unsubstantiated yes! but then again there is a high percentage chance it's true, don't you think? Then again going with your blind attitude probably not.
Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by DrunkYogi
The intentions of the OP have been clear to everyone else as I've already said. If you were unable to see that this thread is a separate issue to the Scottish Independence one currently running then, yes it is unfortunate that in 15 pages you appear to be the only person who missed it. That is regrettable but implies more about you than the quality of my writings in the original post.
Your opinion of my attitude is again irrelevant to this discussion. I have remained to the point and factual with reasoned arguments supported by various sources, and I shall continue to do so.
It would be helpful and appreciated if you refrained from continuing with your off topic emotionally charged assertions.
I am happy however to continue a healthy debate about my points in the OP and any other arguments I have made so far. If you agree or disagree on any specific points please feel free to present your case with any relevant sources to support your comments. That is my sole concern here, considering an important constitutional question relating to England - your personal assertions are unfortunately not what could be considered rational and mature debate.
edit on 31-1-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo
I agree, it looks probable that a majority of Scots will vote to leave the union.
Originally posted by Snoopie
Okay lets get technical. England already has the majority of MPs in parliament. Once Scotland leaves ( I am Scottish ) which will happen i cannot see it going any other way. Don't you think England will ultimately have its own Parliament as you hold the majority over other nations and once Scotland leaves your majority in the house of commons will be vast ?