Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
A Union In Tatters?
My post on the Independent’s online site;
Can someone explain to me why the idea that only English constituency MPs should be allowed to vote on matters affecting only the people of England is somehow wrong?
Am I missing something? It seems a no-brainer to me.
It's a shame it didn't apply when Scottish Labour MPs, including Labour SMPs who were also MPs crucially voted with Blair in favour of the introduction of university tuitions fees in England when their party in Scotland had voted against it the night before.
FOGHORN’s reply;
Easy. Every penny the government spends is derived from national taxation: property taxes, community charges, VAT, National Insurance, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, excise duties, court fines and etc. Therefore, everything to do with public spending, the allocation of tax resources, is a national matter... Irrespective of where that money is to be spent. Therefore, it is altogether incorrect to argue that it is no concern of Scottish MPs if English MPs vote, say, to spend more money on English schools. What you would be saying , in effect, is this: it is no concern of you people how we spend your tax revenues!
On another level, as a far larger, richer, more powerful neighbour, everything and anything that the English do will have some impact upon Scotland.
You people do not, will not, and never have lived in splendid isolation. That's a fiction which exists only in the mind of a certain type of deluded Englishman.
As regards tuition fees, the 1997 Labour government was elected to power with the following manifesto commitment: "The cost of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis". It's a bit rich to be deriding MPs for doing what they actually promised to do, for once.
My reply to FOGHORN;
Leaving aside the two-faced politics manifest in the behaviour of the UK Labour party in 1997, which by the way is easier for Scots than it can ever be for English people to condone, let us consider the substance of your argument.
First, I suggested that only English MPs should vote on matters that ONLY AFFECTED the people living in England.
You don't accept this. If I understand you correctly you are saying that because we are the most populous member of the union we must surrender power over own affairs and effectively become second class citizens of the UK who must await the verdict of the other members of the union before it is decided how we are treated by the UK government.
You say we are the wealthier nation but that is not how it feels to the man on the street.
Do you not see how this could lead to an English incarnation of the SNP, a more clear and present threat to the nations of the union than anything to date?
You would appear to be incapable of any kind of role reversal, any kind of empathy towards the entirety of the ordinary people who live in England. Your callous rhetoric is incandescent.
You are playing with fire.
The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon. Rudyard Kipling;
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
Can someone explain to me why the idea that only English constituency MPs should be allowed to vote on matters affecting only the people of England is somehow wrong?
Am I missing something? It seems a no-brainer to me.
It's a shame it didn't apply when Scottish Labour MPs, including Labour SMPs who were also MPs crucially voted with Blair in favour of the introduction of university tuitions fees in England when their party in Scotland had voted against it the night before.
FOGHORN’s reply;
Easy. Every penny the government spends is derived from national taxation: property taxes, community charges, VAT, National Insurance, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, excise duties, court fines and etc. Therefore, everything to do with public spending, the allocation of tax resources, is a national matter... Irrespective of where that money is to be spent. Therefore, it is altogether incorrect to argue that it is no concern of Scottish MPs if English MPs vote, say, to spend more money on English schools. What you would be saying , in effect, is this: it is no concern of you people how we spend your tax revenues!
On another level, as a far larger, richer, more powerful neighbour, everything and anything that the English do will have some impact upon Scotland.
You people do not, will not, and never have lived in splendid isolation. That's a fiction which exists only in the mind of a certain type of deluded Englishman.
As regards tuition fees, the 1997 Labour government was elected to power with the following manifesto commitment: "The cost of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis". It's a bit rich to be deriding MPs for doing what they actually promised to do, for once.
My reply to FOGHORN;
Leaving aside the two-faced politics manifest in the behaviour of the UK Labour party in 1997, which by the way is easier for Scots than it can ever be for English people to condone, let us consider the substance of your argument.
First, I suggested that only English MPs should vote on matters that ONLY AFFECTED the people living in England.
You don't accept this. If I understand you correctly you are saying that because we are the most populous member of the union we must surrender power over own affairs and effectively become second class citizens of the UK who must await the verdict of the other members of the union before it is decided how we are treated by the UK government.
You say we are the wealthier nation but that is not how it feels to the man on the street.
Do you not see how this could lead to an English incarnation of the SNP, a more clear and present threat to the nations of the union than anything to date?
You would appear to be incapable of any kind of role reversal, any kind of empathy towards the entirety of the ordinary people who live in England. Your callous rhetoric is incandescent.
You are playing with fire.
The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon. Rudyard Kipling;
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
First I am Scottish born and bred. Second I am a veterinary surgeon who has worked for the majority of my life in England.
I can find no difference between the people of England and those of Scotland save for the emotional view of the Scottish psyche when it comes to all things English that we were first exposed to when we were children.
I know how hard realism comes to emotional thinkers, but let me spell it out.
If you think the ordinary people of England are doclile automata that will just shrug their shoulders and think Oh well it's just another injustice we appear to be expected to put up with, I beg to differ.
Why, because of their children. When they see their children who want to advance themselves stymied by an aloof political clique who allow children in other parts of the UK preferential treatment, the anger will grow.
The perceived inequality of treatment of the English in order to preserve the union will grow after the people who live in Scotland are indulged and appeased for deigning to remain (for now) part of the UK, and yes I'm talking about university tuition fees especially.
Cameron and others in the clique know this, but others think, even now, that appeasing the people who live in Scotland should not be reflected in measures to help make the rest the UK feel their children don't get to be second class citizens, hapless victims of being the majority of the UK population.
This was not a rant. I am a scientist by trade and I've lived long enough in the UK and read enough history to know where this is going to end up.
The union was always a false construct. An accident stemming from events hundreds of years ago, and for which nobody alive today is to blame.
If you make a minority feel like they're hostages to a greater power you get rebellion, or at least the SNP. What you get when the majority finally realise they are too...
Well I could talk about the French revolution but that would be unlikely to happen here.
But I wouldn't rule it out in some more PC re-incarnation.
I can find no difference between the people of England and those of Scotland save for the emotional view of the Scottish psyche when it comes to all things English that we were first exposed to when we were children.
I know how hard realism comes to emotional thinkers, but let me spell it out.
If you think the ordinary people of England are doclile automata that will just shrug their shoulders and think Oh well it's just another injustice we appear to be expected to put up with, I beg to differ.
Why, because of their children. When they see their children who want to advance themselves stymied by an aloof political clique who allow children in other parts of the UK preferential treatment, the anger will grow.
The perceived inequality of treatment of the English in order to preserve the union will grow after the people who live in Scotland are indulged and appeased for deigning to remain (for now) part of the UK, and yes I'm talking about university tuition fees especially.
Cameron and others in the clique know this, but others think, even now, that appeasing the people who live in Scotland should not be reflected in measures to help make the rest the UK feel their children don't get to be second class citizens, hapless victims of being the majority of the UK population.
This was not a rant. I am a scientist by trade and I've lived long enough in the UK and read enough history to know where this is going to end up.
The union was always a false construct. An accident stemming from events hundreds of years ago, and for which nobody alive today is to blame.
If you make a minority feel like they're hostages to a greater power you get rebellion, or at least the SNP. What you get when the majority finally realise they are too...
Well I could talk about the French revolution but that would be unlikely to happen here.
But I wouldn't rule it out in some more PC re-incarnation.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago