Scottish Independence

[The Brain]

Why not?

[Admiral Yi]

Why not?

Because there's no reason that it should.

[Jacob]

Why not?

Because there's no reason that it should.

It seems that rational self interest would suggest that in a federation consisting of 4 members controlling 80%, 10%, 5%, and 5% of the power, the part controlling the 80% would ensure that it would get 100% of federal decision making power.

[Admiral Yi]

It seems that rational self interest would suggest that in a federation consisting of 4 members controlling 80%, 10%, 5%, and 5% of the power, the part controlling the 80% would ensure that it would get 100% of federal decision making power.

But that doesn't describe a federated UK. 

[garbon]

Why not?

Because there's no reason that it should.

It seems that rational self interest would suggest that in a federation consisting of 4 members controlling 80%, 10%, 5%, and 5% of the power, the part controlling the 80% would ensure that it would get 100% of federal decision making power.

Of course that does assume that the MPs within a power act in a unified manner. That certainly isn't what happens here with the various Reps withing a state.

[Jacob]

It seems that rational self interest would suggest that in a federation consisting of 4 members controlling 80%, 10%, 5%, and 5% of the power, the part controlling the 80% would ensure that it would get 100% of federal decision making power.

But that doesn't describe a federated UK.

Weren't you asking why a federated UK with England (80% population) as one of four constituent parts wouldn't work? Are you assuming that England wouldn't hold 80% of the Federal power?

I'm reasonably sure that it's unlikely that the English would go along with a federated UK in which England voters hold only 25% of Federal power.

[Admiral Yi]

Weren't you asking why a federated UK with England (80% population) as one of four constituent parts wouldn't work? Are you assuming that England wouldn't hold 80% of the Federal power?

I'm reasonably sure that it's unlikely that the English would go along with a federated UK in which England voters hold only 25% of Federal power.

I'm assuming "England" wouldn't have any standing in the federal parliament, only members elected by the voters of each borough.

[Jacob]

Weren't you asking why a federated UK with England (80% population) as one of four constituent parts wouldn't work? Are you assuming that England wouldn't hold 80% of the Federal power?

I'm reasonably sure that it's unlikely that the English would go along with a federated UK in which England voters hold only 25% of Federal power.

I'm assuming "England" wouldn't have any standing in the federal parliament, only members elected by the voters of each borough.

Yet you are assuming that those 80% of individual members of the federal parliament would not work together to tend to English interests?

[garbon]

Weren't you asking why a federated UK with England (80% population) as one of four constituent parts wouldn't work? Are you assuming that England wouldn't hold 80% of the Federal power?

I'm reasonably sure that it's unlikely that the English would go along with a federated UK in which England voters hold only 25% of Federal power.

I'm assuming "England" wouldn't have any standing in the federal parliament, only members elected by the voters of each borough.

Yet you are assuming that those 80% of individual members of the federal parliament would not work together to tend to English interests?

We hear a lot on this board about how London's interests aren't wider English interests.

[Admiral Yi]

Yet you are assuming that those 80% of individual members of the federal parliament would not work together to tend to English interests?

They don't seem to be doing it now, do they?  There are no subsidies for bad teeth, or taxes on kilts and Joneses with black hair.

[Jacob]

We hear a lot on this board about how London's interests aren't wider English interests.

And that's enough evidence to conclude that a lopsided federation is going to work?

[Jacob]

Yet you are assuming that those 80% of individual members of the federal parliament would not work together to tend to English interests?

They don't seem to be doing it now, do they?  There are no subsidies for bad teeth, or taxes on kilts and Joneses with black hair.

I thought RH's breakdown of the dangers of devolution/ regional assemblies from a Scottish POV was fairly persuasive; more so than cracks about bad teeth and kilt taxes, anyhow.

[garbon]

We hear a lot on this board about how London's interests aren't wider English interests.

And that's enough evidence to conclude that a lopsided federation is going to work?

It does make it a little difficult to just accept the premise that English MP would unite as a cohesive block.

[Jacob]

We hear a lot on this board about how London's interests aren't wider English interests.

And that's enough evidence to conclude that a lopsided federation is going to work?

It does make it a little difficult to just accept the premise that English MP would unite as a cohesive block.

But the issue at hand is whether a lopsided federation will work.

[garbon]

We hear a lot on this board about how London's interests aren't wider English interests.

And that's enough evidence to conclude that a lopsided federation is going to work?

It does make it a little difficult to just accept the premise that English MP would unite as a cohesive block.

But the issue at hand is whether a lopsided federation will work.

I rolled my eyes because you knew I wasn't saying my statement was enough proof that a lopsided federation would work.

Of course, it is only lopsided if English MPs were to consistently band together against all other MPs. Does that typically happen now?