One man's (or woman's) 'nationalism' is another's 'patriotism'? It isn't natural to want your country to be governed by foreigners. Especially foreign pen-pushers and jobsworths.
I see you are wanting rid of Boris, Like it or not the English Nationalist elite managed to get those who were understandably angry with austerity to buy into the 'us and them'. There is though now plenty of strong resistance growing in England thanks to Corbyn giving them a voice. The choice for England. Mogg or Corbyn. Mogg enjoy the last remnants of failed neo liberalism The dismantling of the State since the 1980s: Brexit is the wrong diagnosis of a real crisis Corbyn - a return to a country for all its people. But this is off topic.
Yes, so a very brief reply? Boris Johnson is the almost-inarticulate parliamentary clown. JRM is a prodigious 'brain on legs'. Corbyn is a nonentity, and merely a playing-to-the gallery puppet for ahem, the hard left. You seem to forget how dysfunctional and utterly incompetent the UK was under the nationalised industries used to be - not that there's been any improvement since they were privatised. I despair at what my country has become since being taken over by bureaucrats.
Corbyn would be a prog overthrow. Minority rule by arse-holes and idiots. He'd destroy the country just like he has destroyed his own party. But he has zero chance of ruling here. Mogg would be quite good. Boris wouldn't be that bad. I don't think Mogg wants it and I think Boris has missed his chance. Nationalised industries were ****ing awful. Minority rule and monopolisation at it's worst.
Yes it is....life's easier if you accept it The sweaties like the welsh et al are all happy snaffling up the cash earned and taxed by those in the Sar'feast and then complaining about life Suck it up
The Union no longer makes sense! It only made sense when English king, or jolly racist like Churchill, needed Scots to kill johnny foreigner.
I don't want an "easy" life doing what I'm told by my next door neighbour,having them taking all my earnings, handing me back some of it to spend on what I want and then spending the rest for me on things they want and think I should want just because they do....and when they run out of money and whack some of their purchases on their credit card....I'm expected to pay some of the interest on that because they spent on stuff they wanted and because they wanted it I should want it too. I can't see any benefit in living like that.....what benefit do you see in it?
seriously!!??.....the sar'feast of England pays for the rest of the UK's public services....sweaties free Unis included...end of.
Doesn't matter whether we're independent or part of the union, it will be Holyrood or Westminster that takes your money and tells you what to do.
It isn't being told what to do that is the problem as much as being told what to do by a foreign country which outvotes us 10 to 1. At least in an Independent Scotland, we can vote in the Government the majority in Scotland wants, and get rid of it when the majority in Scotland doesn't want it. In UK General Elections, from 1950-1959, from 1974-1979, and from 1997-2010, the UK got the Government Scotland voted for....but in only in 1964-1966 and 1974-1979 did the UK get Governments they didn't vote for due to Scottish Votes.
End of? Really? So given your response, you can see no benefit in having your neighbour control your income, while also imposing the rules on what you are allowed to spend the rest on, obliging you to stay within a budget they set for you to spend on your own family's needs,while they can buy anything they want, and into the bargain rack up debt for you to pay? You think it is just fine anyway? Not got a lot of self-respect, do you? And if it wasn't for the rest of the UK, the sar'feast of England, particularly London, wouldn't be so well-off...because London doesn't produce much...just absorbs the money other areas, like Scotland, produces...and then gambles with it.
Scotland gambles with all it;s production and always loses in the end. And then we bail them out. And so they never learn their lesson. And they never will. The more budget responsibility they get the more they should learn, but they never will because they will alway get bailed out. It's not exactly an adult relationship. It is a dependency relationship. A family. In order for that to continue, love and loyalty must be felt by those doing the giving. So the balance Scotland seeks is to be whiney enough to get paid and not so whiney it gets divorced.
Oh who cares. London doesn't have the government they voted for. Neither does Wales or Urban England. You know who does? The UK as a whole.
Neighbour control your income....??? You're dealing in the abstract not reality. Get real and try and return to the 21st Century and don't get lost in all the banal rhetoric of days gone by. Scotland had its chance but its innate socialist desire to have everything and do nothing for it has gone.....get real. You cannot have everything you want and pay for it out of your own pockets...its financially delusional...London and the sar'feast pays.....end of!!! Ah come on pal...I'm not the one moaning of them damned "sassanachs" south of the haggis munching line, snuggling up to old Corries LPs and dreaming of halcyon days of old.
But London is part of England, just like Urban England....and technically so is Wales because it was annexed by England in the 16th century. Scotland is a country which is one of the two signatories to a "Union" Treaty...a legal agreement from which either party can withdraw.
I am dealing with reality...but the one I live in, and not the one in your head. You don't really think that Scotland would either need or want a 140,000+ servicemen and equipment to head overseas and trash other countries to change their regimes, steal their resources and kill their civilians in the name of defence, do you? Or that we want the nuclear penis(aka Trident) that Westminster waves at the world as if it would deter anything...(but it does get them a veto in the UN...so that is worth billions to Westminsters overweening sense of importance). You surely don't think we would want 800+ unelected lords in a second chamber in Parliament (if we even want a second chamber).Why would we need 200+ Embassies/Consulates/High Commissions etc? Or 430,000+ civil servants? or, if it comes to that, 25 ministerial Government departments, 20 non-ministerial Government departments and 400 agencies and public bodies? Surely you don't think that any country would be starting out with a tax code 21,000 pages long (and then wonder how folk manage to fiddle their taxes) and 60,000 civil servants to deal with the over-complex set-up? Scotland would neither need or want to have the bloated government set-up that Westminster has become over the years as successive governments expanded their fiefdom to give more people ministerial titles to make them feel important. Try comparing the spending of an independent Scotland with the likes of Norway or Ireland, and there would be much more reality in that than assuming that we want independence in order to slavishly copy all Westminster's profligracy and stupidity? Them damned "sassanachs" south of the border are dreaming of the halycon days of old when England had more than just the colonies of Scotland, Wales and NI under their thumb from which to plunder resources...and I bet they think their ex-colonies will all welcome them with open arms and rain largesse, in the form of superb trade deals to our design, upon our heads. Funny that English/British nationalism, as evidenced by Brexit, seems to be considered a different kind of nationalism to that in Scotland......and a better one...even though, from this side of the border, it does look to be much more insular/ethnic than ours.
Looks let's get real here shall we: the only ones who want to Remain are self-loathers, feeble-minded simpletons who believe it would be a good idea to join full-on because they won't have to convert unspent foreign currency into pounds sterling when they return from continental holidays to the UK, and elitists who see the EU as their post-retirement 'pastures new' to carry on living their parasitic lives thanks to the generosity of the member states' taxpayers.
London is part of England, but its also part of the UK, which voted for a Conservative government overall. Scotland may not have voted for it, but the UK as a whole did. You know what happens when people vote for something you don't like? You campaign until the next election trying to get them to change their mind.
Don't be silly! I don't even have a passport as I've been waiting for a Scottish one my whole life. I'm not exactly a remainer, either, though I did vote remain, because nobody on the leave side had any even tentative plan as to how we were going to go forward after Brexit...it was all about getting rid of EU people who were working here, mostly doing jobs our citizens wouldn't touch with a bargepole, like fruit-picking or weren't qualified to do, like doctoring, stopping people we had blasted out of home and hearth and turned into refugees from coming here via the EU, and how to spend the magic money tree which would grow out of our freedom to take years to negotiate separate treaties with every country in the world. I voted to come out of the EU in the 1970s when we were belatedly asked, because I thought that EFTA had worked OK and was all that was needed at the time, (and still is), and I didn't think the UK would wear not being a founding member of the EU with a controlling interest very well, or for very long, particularly as France and Germany appeared to be in charge, whereas the UK did have a modicum of clout in EFTA, being a founder member with the biggest population. The single market/customs union is one thing, a prospective United States of Europe is another altogether. It isn't as if Heath didn't know about the desire for closer and closer co-operation before we joined (heck, even I did)...but ovbiously in his view, it was worth it for the trade and everything else was in the future and not a problem for thinking about then. Unfortunately, forty five years on, Brexiting is not as simple as the simplistic Brexiteers thought it would be, and it is not as easy to have their cake and eat it as the arrogant Government thought it was going to be. Maybe a reminder that we are a small relatively insignificant set of islands now, and not the possessor of the resources of half the world as we used to be. Without Trident , we would be of no more importance to the world than any other country of our size is.
Unfortunately, therein lies the problem...the electoral system...and the fact that voting is not compulsory. It means that no government is ever elected on a majority of votes, just on the number of seats won. However the thing is that, apart from the few times I cited, the UK always gets the Government England votes for....so we get the policies England wants implemented. It's a pity that it was AV they put up against FPTP in the 2011 referendum on the voting system and not STV, because STV is more easily understood (and makes for a better representative Government). By my way of thinking, Government by a party with the majority of seats in the FPTP system, might make for strong Government.....but it rarely makes for good Government, because a majority party only has to keep its own members onside and together(via the whips) and has no need to consider the opinions of the opposition, even if that opposition has won more votes in the country than the ruling party and therefore represents more of the population.
That would be "Looks let's get real here shall we: the only ones who want to Remain are self-loathers, feeble-minded simpletons who believe it would be a good idea to join full-on because they won't have to convert unspent foreign currency into pounds sterling when they return from continental holidays to the UK, and elitists who see the EU as their post-retirement 'pastures new' to carry on living their parasitic lives thanks to the generosity of the member states' taxpayers." After all,16,141,241 individuals in the UK didn't vote Remain because they wanted to continue with foreign holidays and a retirement to the sun.....most of them voted remain to try and ensure they still had a job so they could afford foreign holidays....and, yes, maybe an eventual retirement in the sun...and now a lot of them don't have a job, and Brexit hasn't even bitten yet.
I didn't generalise, only guessed from what I know of the dumbed-down UK mind-set. For instance, take the Project Fear aspect: the main fear-mongering ploy was the use of the word 'jobs' (or 'jarbs'? lol). To elucidate, take a notional demographic of 1000 UK citizens hearing a so-called big beast of government blah-blah-ing that 'thousands of jobs will be lost if we leave'. How many of them do you think would panic, and vote accordingly? I'd say nearly all of them, which of course skewed the result of the referendum, even though it went against them. And what's so 'silly' about guessing that our elitists and political classes don't regard Brussels as being a happy hunting ground post their domestic sinecures? And how many morons have you heard bellyaching over the years about having to convert their left-over holiday spending money back into sterling, and what a good idea it would be to be a part of the Eurozone to save them having to do it? I'm not the smartest kid on the PF block but I don't do 'silly'.
