Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

1929crash

New Members
  • Posts

    11,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 1929crash

  1. +1

    If Regional Assemblies are good enough for England then Scotland, Wales and NI should be balkanised too. The reality is that Regional Devolution in England is a make job scheme for NuLab political apparatchik's and an attack on existing truly local democratic structures.

    Wales used to be balkanised - it was called having proper local government. However, since 1996 the number of Welsh local authorities have been drastically reduced, first to 22, and now the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay wants to see this reduced to just eight.

    My view is that if the question of abolishing devolution in its entirety were to be put to Welsh voters next Thursday, it would be approved. All that the WG has done for me is impose a 5p tax on plastic bags and pressured local councils into limiting the amount of rubbish I can put out for the dustmen, under threat of a £75 fine.

  2. One assumes the lack of realism that the SNP had to the result* would have extended to policy making. The Nats on here were certain they would poll 60% as did Salmond (the Unionists took a bearish line of a cliff hanger that didn't materialise)......a 15% error like this on oil revenues and the economy would implode.

    I think Scotland should run its own affairs but they need a party that can make realistic assumptions about oil reserves, tax revenues, flight of capital, loss of state subsidised jobs etc.

    Scotland needs an independence party that can base its agenda on realism not extreme certainty like the fact they were certain to win.

    * for the record my prediction was 53/47 to the Unionists but heavily swayed by the SNP extreme Zionists on here. I was pretty certain there was a silent majority and the Nats wear their opinions on their sleeves by contrast. The fact the Nats were blinkered to that suggests policy would be run with similar false optimism leading to bankruptcy.

    A thoughtful post, but even given the No result, it has touched off an orgy of constitutional navel gazing that is going to absorb everyone's energies for the next few years.

  3. I'm sure 1929crash will be creaming himself over Haywoods ideas.

    Ah well, since we are back to arguing, I must ask you for your opinion about the Scottish vote and its effects on Wales. If the Scots won't vote for independence, it makes the prospects for a welsh state recede somewhat - until the Sun balloons into a red giant.

  4. They're attempting to split up Wales too into city regions. With the north east being hived off into a Chester City region. The task group which came up with this was headed by Dr Elizabeth Haywood - wife of a Peter Hain. They want to destroy all feelings of nationhood....unless it's British of course.

    For once I agree with you - city regions is a sort of buzz word idea of the day without anything to back it up. i read that Haywood report for work purposes - I had no idea she was married to Mr Orange Tan. :o

  5. I was thinking it was the other way round. Listening to Peter Hain yesterday, Labour are trying to Balkanise England, so it never gets a united voice and Labour Lib/Dem MP's in Scotland continue to have influence in Westminster.

    The plan for regional devolution was massively rejected by the North East a while ago, but you can guarantee LibLabCon will continue down that route till they get the 'right' answer.

    If you have seperate assemblies or Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, then England needs one too, and you need to solve the West Lothian question, which is more or less impossible.

    There would have been outrage North of the border, if they had tried to Balkanise Scotland with mini assemblies in say Glasgow and Edinburgh, but would quite happily inflict this kind of organisation on England.

    But the current situation is impossible too. And if you have an English PM - the natural outcome of an English parliament - where does that put the position of a British PM?

  6. No I don't, that's just a stupid and badly chosen analogy attempting to assert intellect via knowledge of random history, and completely inappropriate in application to a fellow anonynous internet warrior on an anonymous forum in one of the safest, wealthiest countries in the world. But I'm glad I've made you think, because judging from your wealth of posts on the referendum I wasn't sure you were capable of independent thought.

    On Scotland and EU/£ etc, my point was just that it should (have) be up to them to decide. I'm simply pro people and I don't think this will all now work out well for Scots, but time will tell.

    I think my anaology was perfectly aposite. Austerity from Camoron or austerity from Merkel and Draghi.

  7. That's nonsense, but you're right in that if everybody thinks like you there's no progress. Why do you set the terms according to those dictated to you by the media and self-interest groups? I appreciate the general irrelevance of true sovereignty these days but that does not preclude steps in the right direction. Perhaps you think it's best we all just roll over and accept defeat forever but I don't. I was actually quite excited at the unlikely prospect of being able to cheer on a small chunk of progress for Scotland, even if at my expense. But indocrination and fear won. Maybe I like to dream but don't assume we're all indoctrinated or fearful.

    I have not taken my lead from the media - as I recall, the media are bitterly against anyone who opposes the EU.

    I have experience of the nationalists in Wales - they have permanent hard-ons for Brussels and they are no different in Scotland.

    You make me think of some poor man in the middle of poland in 1939, wondering whether he should go west and live under German rule, or east to exist under Soviet rule.

  8. Little bit of vote rigging has been going on but not sure how much.

    That video is ludicicrous. If rigging had gone on, the place to do it would have been the postal vote stage, not right out in the open before cameras.

    1. The first lady swapping votes between Yes and No looks like she is trying to work out where to put a small number of ballots - the small number probably relates to the fact that they are 'spoiled' in some way - perhaps a mark that crosses both boxes, a comment written in a box, or something that makes the counters uncertain. These uncertain votes are usually taken up with the agents for the respective sides before being put into the final vote tally or disregarded.

    2. The Sky News clip was probably not showing counted votes. The reference to turnout at the bottom of the screen suggests that it was early in the evening when votes were being verified. Verified means opening the ballot boxes and simply counting the number of ballots in order to determine how many there are. This is an important number for many reasons, not least to ensure that when all the votes are counted - yes, no, spoiled, the totals tally. The verified votes are put into bundles of hundreds and twenty-fives before they are actually counted.

    3. There is no evidence that the man in the third clip is filling in a ballot paper. If he is, he is pretty lacksadaisical considering that more than 3.5 million votes were cast.

    When counting/verifying takes place there are scrutineers from both sides who are allowed to stand over the counters checking that things are going properly.

    Finally, you can usually tell a vote rigging op by the slow speed of things - eg, it taking a week to count votes in the Republican presidential primaries in 2012 (when Ron Paul seriously underperformed) or, more close to home, the fact that it took so long to count the votes in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets last May. Votes cast for councillors on the Thursday were still not counted by the following Monday. The media only sat up and took notice when it affected the Euro-count.

  9. About right. What's actually been achieved? Zero. Promises to win over No votes are either vague when asserted by those with a mandate to deliver, or basically irrelevant when asserted by those without one. Even assumptions of continuity are naive when the Government now know 45%ish hate them and 55% aren't keen either.

    A campaign championed by cameron, brown, darling, banks, land owners and big business. And it won. Does make me wonder what part of the establishment is not on your side people still don't get.

    The idea of Scottish independence was bogus - without any attempt to leave the EU or utilise its own currency, the independence on offer was as genuine as the sort you would find in the old South African bantustans.

    In any event, I fail to see how small countries are going to have anything other than less ability to stand up to the global mega-corporations.

  10. There were many strange features to the vote: the wording, the inclusion of under 18's, inclusion of immigrants, exclusion of scots outside the country, no hurdle %age.

    Alex Salmond was allowed to choose the wording, the timing and the regulations around who was allowed to vote.

  11. No, I would include London in the parliament so in pure votes it would have a lot of influence.

    Talking about the wealthy south and poorer north is lazy thinking and misses the real political issues. There are plenty of rich areas in the north and poor areas in the south.

    OK - lazy thinking to some extent. However, north of England and the south are like two different countires in many respects. And TBH England per se is as imaginary a construct as Wales or Scotland.

  12. How very convenient... :ph34r:

    What would you do? I would like to see the postal vote on demand system abolished and a return to postal voting only for sickness and absence reasons, as was the case prior to 2000.

    But don't forget that the Scots themselves controlled the ballot and the laws governing it.

  13. Remember days ago on this thread when folk were talking about how nobody voted Tory in Scotland ? And I corrected them on a few occasions by pointing out that circa 20% of Scots vote for them on a regular basis ?

    Just read an interesting point elsewhere. Every single time Salmond and sturgeon were on TV they made the same point - vote yes and you will never again get the Tory government none of us voted for.

    They instantly ensured 20% of the populace wouldn't be voting yes. They basically insulted them.

    Waving goodbye to 20% of your voters when you need 51% is in hindsight - a ******ing dumb thing to do.

    Maybe they regarded them as irreconcilable.

    Having said that, the amount of Tory support is easily understated if you look at seats won on a first-past-the-post basis, but there is substantial Tory support when you look at the actual votes.

    I certainly got the impression that two issues were being mixed up by the Yessirs - the governance issue and the question of how fair/unfair is current UK government policy.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.