Alex Salmond to let 16-year-olds vote in bid to secure independence

[Richard Hakluyt]

This is what Tam said in the Commons, according to wiki :

"For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate ... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?"

[Valmy]

The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for that constituency at the time. Essentially, because of devolution, there are a huge range of issues in Scotland, Wales and NI that English MPs have no vote on. But, conversely, MPs from these areas can vote on such matters which affect England, as England does not have a devolved government.

I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?

[The Brain]

The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, MP for that constituency at the time. Essentially, because of devolution, there are a huge range of issues in Scotland, Wales and NI that English MPs have no vote on. But, conversely, MPs from these areas can vote on such matters which affect England, as England does not have a devolved government.

I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?

I don't know. What would be the practical impact of the US being ruled by Mexico?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well, English people are slowly getting rather irritated by the discrepancy. It is not good for the Union as it decreases support for the Union.

[Valmy]

I don't know. What would be the practical impact of the US being ruled by Mexico?

The practical impact of a theoretical situation?

[Valmy]

Well, English people are slowly getting rather irritated by the discrepancy. It is not good for the Union as it decreases support for the Union.

So if there was an English...Witenagemot or whatever...Westminster would be reduced to determining foreign policy and regulating trade between the...um...statish things.

[Sheilbh]

While I'm sure the SNP can give you some, it's clearly an issue that revolves around self-identity - how individuals and a group see themselves.  It's much more an emotional question than a practical one.  And I don't mean that it a negative way.

Exactly.  And this is the problem unionism has.  They never get beyond 'it's bad' and 'it'll cost us' which are undeveloped and kind of insulting arguments.  Nationalism tugs at the heart-strings, a union worth saving should do the same.

I understand the theoretical issues but what is the practical impact of this?

I think the last government passed a few laws that would only have effect on England with Scottish and Welsh votes.  A majority of English MPs are Tory and voted against various measures.

It should be said that before devolution it cut both ways.  I seem to remember that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland in the 80s was done with predominately non-Northern Irish votes.

So if there was an English...Witenagemot or whatever...Westminster would be reduced to determining foreign policy and regulating trade between the...um...statish things.

Basically, but trade is for the EU anyway.

[viper37]

I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation.  The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.

*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?

Are you a Scot?  And what about the Irish?  On what basis do you determine how people see themselves?  Are you a girl or a boy?  If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?

A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons.  Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.

Oh wait...you were serious.

following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth?  Or one country by continent.  Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia.  That would work well   After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis.  So, why not?

Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States.  Otherwise, why not 12 States?

@Valmy:

For the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect.  You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.

That's why there are nationalists.  Big countries tend to be centralized.  Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal.  More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed.  Most cultures don't mix.  If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England.  Hence a few rebellions over time.  Yet, they speak English too.  And genetically speaking, they're probably not far.  Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State?  Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that?  What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland?  Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?

The American speak english like the Canadians.  How many Canadians support annexation with the US?  Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists?  Are they heroes or scums?

[garbon]

I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation.  The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.

*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?

Are you a Scot?  And what about the Irish?  On what basis do you determine how people see themselves?  Are you a girl or a boy?  If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?

A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons.  Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.

Oh wait...you were serious.

following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth?  Or one country by continent.  Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia.  That would work well   After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis.  So, why not?

Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States.  Otherwise, why not 12 States?

@Valmy:

For the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect.  You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.

That's why there are nationalists.  Big countries tend to be centralized.  Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal.  More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed.  Most cultures don't mix.  If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England.  Hence a few rebellions over time.  Yet, they speak English too.  And genetically speaking, they're probably not far.  Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State?  Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that?  What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland?  Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?

The American speak english like the Canadians.  How many Canadians support annexation with the US?  Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists?  Are they heroes or scums?

So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?

[Admiral Yi]

I do, and I have reasons, but Scotland is no nation.  The Anglo people form a nation, split between six or so jurisdictions*; I see no need to make it seven.

*And to some extent the West, split between about, what, thirty?

Are you a Scot?  And what about the Irish?  On what basis do you determine how people see themselves?  Are you a girl or a boy?  If you see a woman do you tell her she's a man because all of this gender crap is in her head?

A group of people see themselves different from others, and they have their reasons.  Just as Arizona and North Carolina see themsleves different from the New Yorkers or Californians, otherwise, there wouldn't be any States, just one big Federal government with a single set of laws for all jurisdiction.

Oh wait...you were serious.

following the Federalists point of view, I always wonder why they don't push for one big country on Earth?  Or one country by continent.  Like Israël as part of Saudi Arabia.  That would work well   After all, as Tim said, we shouldn't have government founded on an ethnic basis.  So, why not?

Americans may see themselves as Americans first, but they have their local "specificities" they want to keep, hence so many States.  Otherwise, why not 12 States?

@Valmy:

For the reasons that became immediately obvious once this principle was put into effect.  You create a state that by its very raison d'être makes all minorities less than full citizens.

That's why there are nationalists.  Big countries tend to be centralized.  Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal.  More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.
I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed.  Most cultures don't mix.  If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.
AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England.  Hence a few rebellions over time.  Yet, they speak English too.  And genetically speaking, they're probably not far.  Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State?  Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that?  What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland?  Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?

The American speak english like the Canadians.  How many Canadians support annexation with the US?  Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists?  Are they heroes or scums?

So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?

I'm not even following this thread any more.

[viper37]

The PQ ran the 1995 referendum saying many similar things.  It was revealed afterwards they intended to do a unilateral declaration of independence within days of a yes vote (and that France was prepared to recognize same).  I rather suspect something similar here.

That is not correct.
The referendum provided for a one year period during wich the Quebec and Ottawa government would negotiate the transfer of power based on the proposals agreed between the PQ and the ADQ following a previous public inquiry (The Liberals refused to participate).
The proposals was to keep the Canadian nationality (passport) and the Canadian dollar.
If after one year, the negociations would fail, then the government could do a unilateral declaration of independence.

This wasn't what Parizeau wanted, but this is what he got.  And he would have been legally bound to stick to those terms.

[Valmy]

The American speak english like the Canadians.  How many Canadians support annexation with the US?  Those who don't support annexation, are they patriots or nationalists?  Are they heroes or scums?

Wait I am against nationalism why would I push for an annexation of another country on nationalistic 'anglo-unity' or whatever grounds?

[viper37]

So nations should be decided on how people feel about themselves? So NYC should secede and form its own republic?

The State of New York could de that, in my opinion (what your Constitution says, I don't know), if a democratic majority decided they would be better off as independant.  It is their choice, and a political solution should be negociated with the Federal government.

As for the city of New York, I do not know how this works in your country.  Here, the cities are creation of the provinces.  They exist, they live or die by the will of the provincial governments.  Their laws are set in accordance to the laws of the Province, they have very limited powers.  They can be merged or unmerged by the provincial government at any time.  So, here, Montreal couldn't secede, because it is not a political entity.  But NYC?  I honestly don't know. 

[viper37]

Wait I am against nationalism why would I push for an annexation of another country on nationalistic 'anglo-unity' or whatever grounds?

The French and English definitions seems to vary greatly...
But the anti-thesis of nationalism is usually the one were all cultures should be merged in one country.  No individual states/countries for each nations, but one big country were everyone is happy, theoritically.  Canadians always advocate Quebec nationalism is silly because we are not different from other Canadians.  Hence the comparison with US/Canada division.

[Valmy]

That's why there are nationalists.  Big countries tend to be centralized.  Once centralized a group will dominate the other, rarely are all groups truly equal.  More often than not, it's the majority, but sometimes, it's the minority.

That makes no sense.  A smaller country would necessarily be more centralized and why would no groups dominate in a smaller country?  Certainly a group will dominate but that group should be based on its political agenda not on its touting of some ethnicity.  Nationalists create conflict by creating groups around what people are, not what they believe.

I think Serbia was a prime example of a multi-ethnic country that failed.  Most cultures don't mix.  If you want it to work, it needs to be heavily decentralized.

Serbia is a prime example of how nationalism can create violence and conflict where none really needed to take place.  Besides Serbia was a very small country.  Heck please explain the vast cultural difference between Montenegro and Serbia?  Besides the country itself was created to be a nation state and thus had that poison pill already firmly in its mouth at birth.

AFAIK, the Catholic Irish weren't too happy about being part of England.  Hence a few rebellions over time.

And why was that?   

Yet, they speak English too.  And genetically speaking, they're probably not far.  Should all of Ireland be a part of the United Kingdom, with the same government, the same Head of State?  Are they morons for not seeing the logic in that?  What's the difference between Ireland and Scotland?  Why should one be part of the United Kindgom and not the other?

This sounds like you are lecturing Ide.  I am not in favor of his 'all English speaking peeps UNITE' idea.