A bunch of Tory MPs are complaining that the referendum on changing the voting system is to be held on the same day as the English local, Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections.
What a bunch of losers these Tory MPs are.
At a time when the government is trying to keep costs down, are they really suggesting that the referendum be held on a different date, thus costing millions more to administer ?
The date makes sense on every level.
Update : I am pleased to see Iain Dale agrees too.
15 comments:
AV?
A miserable compromise in the words of Clegg.
Quite how the hypocrites are fronting it up now, I don't understand.
The trouble is, you see, that Camerclegg, probably split back into two people for the night and presumably someone from the Labour Party Milly or Millie or Fat Balls or even that funny wee man Andy, will all be on tv once again battering our ears with the referendum.
The BBC, Sky and STV will be broadcasting Prime Ministerial Debates on the subject, and that will completely overpower the Scottish, Welsh and Irish elections, and the parties that the BBC et al do not consider important enough to have a say on the referendum, including the Government of Scotland, and the Coalition Partner in the Government of Wales, and all the parties which make up the Government of Northern Ireland.
Of course to anyone outside of these pesky Celtic countries it doesn’t matter a damn. The fact that the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and all the Irish Parties will be obliterated from the discussions will not be bothering Camerclegg just shows that unless you’re English you get a bad deal out of all of this... no one bothers to consider how it might affect the democratic representation of the parties in these countries. Just as it hasn’t occurred to the English Government that the next General Election will be on the same day as the Celtic Elections, and that the parties that are tiny minorities in the London parliament but which are major players in the politics of the fringe countries will be excluded from the tv debates on which the election hinges.
We know we are not important (except for oil), but it hurts having our face rubbed in it. Really it does.
Thanks a bunch the Clegg half of the Siamese twins.
Re; Comments from Tris. I wish the Nationalists would get on with it and have a referendum on complete independence. The sooner the Scots in particular get their independence the better. As an Englishman I a fully support Scottish (and Welsh) independence and would actively campaign for it. My taxes could be reduced and I wouldn't have to listen to them whinging anymore.
Thanks for your good wishes erm, what's your name... oh yes, Anon... well, none the less thanks anyway.
You would indeed be free of us, but then you'd lose the oil, and your country would be bankrupt.... no wait MORE bankrupt... and your taxes would go back up again....
Just imagine how nice it would be if we didn't have to send our lads to die for stupid british wars while the red white and blue pretends it matters and sticks it's collective tongue up yet another presidential arse.
It might not suit your argument to note that a largely Scottish cabinet made up of Scottish mps and Scottish educated people started those wars. Also it us worth noting that north sea oil dies nor cover the differential in the formula the scots receive extra over the rest of the uk.
Mr Anon: Oh there were indeed a few Scots, but I think you'll find that rather like James 6th they had become English by adoption.
The man who started the wars was an English MP, born English and representing an English consituency. The bulk of the cabinet at that time was English, even if there was, I agree, a dispropotionate number of North British, as one of them described himself, in it. The Tories, who were to a man English, salivated at the thought of war and voted wholeheartedly for it.
The North Sea oil figures you mention are dubious in the extreme, and of course difficult to count in any case as the price of oil fluctuates and in any case is measured in dollars which raise and fall against the pound, but with the recent new finds, I'm sure we can easily outclass your generous "subsidy" to us.
Nobody really knows how much North Sea oil is worth, or at least they are not telling us. But let’s face it without Scottish Labour MPs England, on its own, would have never ending Conservative governments. And yet not even the Conservative party is proposing to dissolve the Union, campaigning by an anonymous English person aside. I wonder why? Surely it is not English love for the sponging piss artists of Scotland, those tight assed moaners, good for nothing but to hold England back from its own glorious destiny in a land of milk and honey. No there must be another reason don’t you think anonymous?
Isn't the basic reason for the Union that people work better together ?
Well, it is a good reason, or rather would be if it worked and worked equally, or was seen to.
The English think that they subsidise us. See above, but they Mayor of London has told them that they do, and he should know, because he's Dave's best mate.
On the other hand we think that if we hadn't had England to support all through the 80s and 90s we would all be living like Norwegians. Comfortable, warm and safe. No nuclear bombs, a massive oil fund, like every other country that has oil, and no pensioners dying of the cold and starvation in winter.
We think that everything goes to the SE of England, and they think that they work hard to keep us in betting shops and pubs.
In short, it doesn't work. The political aspirations of the two countries are different... now it may be that that's true of different parts of England too... but that's another problem.
Well yea annon and you are a great example of that! Assuming of course that it is the same anonymous person that is (we don’t know). You were just advocating the dissolution of the Union and wishing the SNP well in its referendum and not even on a different post but earlier on this same one! You said yourself that your taxes would be reduced and you would not have to listen to Scots whinging- you do remember doing that don’t you? Now you think we are better off as all one happy family working together for the better good? What a volte face even more stunning than any made by the Lib Dems. Don’t tell us all that you actually found out the real reason for keeping the union, whatever it is, I notice you don’t say.
If you read their comments properly, I would suggest all three anon's are different people as indeed this one is. I agree with the first 'anon'. If Tris and Munguin believe that they can survive without UK taxes and live off their oil, why don't they just get on with it and bugger off. I would suggest though that they are more likely to emulate Iceland and Ireland, than Norway, as indeed Alex Salmond thought they would and wanted them to. Go for it!
How exactly does reading their comments properly make it clear that three anonymous people are different? I would have thought that in a discussion, if that is what this is, the reverse would be the case. Clearly not where anonymous people who can’t be bothered to sign in even using a non de plume, like you anon (3) is it? It makes a discussion so much easier if we all know who we are talking to don’t you think? Unless of course you just want to chip in with a ludicrous generalisations like that, that you don’t want to admit to as even a made up you.
Thank you for at least acknowledging that it is our oil. I’m assuming that by lumping Tris and I together your are actually lumping the Scots together. You see that’s the problem with these short sweeping anonymous statements they are not very clear. All I would say to it is that, that is what we are trying to do. Clearly with the aid of all these anonymous English people. Such a shame you don’t want to stand up and be counted then you might get your country back too and get rid of the moaning Scots to boot. You wont get either with preachy anonymous comments on blogs.
Ah Anon; I see, whichever one you are. Sorry, it gets rather confusing with all these ‘anons’. (Incidentally, it only takes a minute to register with a name and it does make conversing easier.)
I don’t know that reading the comments properly necessarily tells one whether an ‘anon’ is different from another ‘anon’.
Anyway, why would you assume that Scotland would be incapable of coping with running its own affairs? Isn’t that rather insulting? Aren’t there many countries with around the same population which manage nicely? Are the Scots particularly thick in your estimation? Thicker than the population of other small European or Asian countries?
I’m not going to go into the arguments of “it’s not all oil; we do have other things": I’m sure you know that. I’m sure you know too that we would never want to have a nuclear arsenal, nor want run wars all over the world with our collective tongues firmly in the butt of an American President. This would save incredible amounts of money. Top tables are expensive as anyone who has sat at one will tell you. There are pretences to be kept up; standards below which one must not fall.
Why do you think that we would be more likely to emulate Iceland and Ireland, than Norway? Do you have a reasoned argument for this assumption, or is it a convenient prop to your non argument, along with your non name?
Are you aware of the rate of growth in the economies of these two countries compared with the rate of growth in the UK? Are you aware that after a little local difficulty they are now on the way to recovery, and that it is likely that they will see real recovery over the next few years? The UK, on the other hand, may well be heading for a double dip recession.
I can’t speak for Munguin, but I personally would be delighted to go take myself off, 'bugger off' even as you eloquently suggest, and spend my money on Scotland, in an economy based on our needs as opposed to the economy of the south east of England.
Ah Anon; I see, whichever one you are. Sorry, it gets rather confusing with all these ‘anons’. (Incidentally, it only takes a minute to register with a name and it does make conversing easier.)
I don’t know that reading the comments properly necessarily tells one whether an ‘anon’ is different from another ‘anon’.
Anyway, why would you assume that Scotland would be incapable of coping with running its own affairs? Isn’t that rather insulting? Aren’t there many countries with around the same population which manage nicely? Are the Scots particularly thick in your estimation? Thicker than the population of other small European or Asian countries?
I’m not going to go into the arguments of “it’s not all oil; we do have other things": I’m sure you know that. I’m sure you know too that we would never want to have a nuclear arsenal, nor want run wars all over the world with our collective tongues firmly in the butt of an American President. This would save incredible amounts of money. Top tables are expensive as anyone who has sat at one will tell you. There are pretences to be kept up; standards below which one must not fall.
Why do you think that we would be more likely to emulate Iceland and Ireland, than Norway? Do you have a reasoned argument for this assumption, or is it a convenient prop to your non argument, along with your non name?
Are you aware of the rate of growth in the economies of these two countries compared with the rate of growth in the UK? Are you aware that after a little local difficulty they are now on the way to recovery, and that it is likely that they will see real recovery over the next few years? The UK, on the other hand, may well be heading for a double dip recession.
I can’t speak for Munguin, but I personally would be delighted to go take myself off, 'bugger off' even as you eloquently suggest, and spend my money on Scotland, in an economy based on our needs as opposed to the economy of the south east of England.
Ah Anon; I see, whichever one you are. Sorry, it gets rather confusing with all these ‘anons’. (Incidentally, it only takes a minute to register with a name and it does make conversing easier.)
I don’t know that reading the comments properly necessarily tells one whether an ‘anon’ is different from another ‘anon’.
Anyway, why would you assume that Scotland would be incapable of coping with running its own affairs? Isn’t that rather insulting? Aren’t there many countries with around the same population which manage nicely? Are the Scots particularly thick in your estimation? Thicker than the population of other small European or Asian countries?
I’m not going to go into the arguments of “it’s not all oil; we do have other things": I’m sure you know that. I’m sure you know too that we would never want to have a nuclear arsenal, nor want run wars all over the world with our collective tongues firmly in the butt of an American President. This would save incredible amounts of money. Top tables are expensive as anyone who has sat at one will tell you. There are pretences to be kept up; standards below which one must not fall.
Why do you think that we would be more likely to emulate Iceland and Ireland, than Norway? Do you have a reasoned argument for this assumption, or is it a convenient prop to your non argument, along with your non name?
Are you aware of the rate of growth in the economies of these two countries compared with the rate of growth in the UK? Are you aware that after a little local difficulty they are now on the way to recovery, and that it is likely that they will see real recovery over the next few years? The UK, on the other hand, may well be heading for a double dip recession.
I can’t speak for Munguin, but I personally would be delighted to go take myself off, 'bugger off' even as you eloquently suggest, and spend my money on Scotland, in an economy based on our needs as opposed to the economy of the south east of England.
Post a Comment