It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nerevar
This is a question that has been plaguing me ever since it started in 1998...
Basically, the UK underwent a change in 1998 with a process called 'devolution'. This means that the power to create and change legislation in 3 of the 4 Kingdoms was granted to the individual members National assembly or parliament. The three kindoms being Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.....obvioulsy it was decided (SOMEWHERE BY SOMEONE) that for some reason the largest and most populous kingdom (and also the largest provider of tax income), England, would not be devolved.
The scottish paliament was projected to cost £50million, it actually cost £431million to build (provided courtesy of the UK taxpayer) and costs £6.7million a year to runb (again from the UK taxpayer)
So if anyone can give a reason as to why an English assembly has not been proposed please let me know. The only reason i can think of is that it is easier to push through laws restricting freedom if the largest kingdom doesn't have a say. There must be some sort of reason.....
In the UK parliament scottish, welsh and Northern Irish Members have a say on the governing of England........
news.bbc.co.uk...
Official papers which were previously secret have shown how ministers were advised to delay devolution to maintain control of North Sea oil revenues.
The 1970s documents warned that if devolution increased calls for independence, the loss of oil income might leave the UK virtually bankrupt.
[A Whitehall official] said: "The Scots have really got us over a barrel here. The prospects for a separate English, Welsh and Ulster economy on the same assumption must look pretty grim."
Papers released at the end of last year by the Cabinet Office under the 30-year rule revealed a 1975 memo by Sir Kenneth Berrill, head of the central policy review staff, saying that Scotland could "go it alone" on the profits of North Sea oil.
He said the note admitted that a UK government would have to divert huge resources to Scotland for it to be as well off as under independence.
www.theherald.co.uk...
It set out how Scotland would have had one of the strongest currencies in Europe, attracting international capital into its banks in the same way as Switzerland. It argued Scotland could quickly become one of Europe's strongest economies with "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.
Originally posted by Nerevar
good find janus!
That is the point i am trying to make. The North Sea oil fields are not scottish but are BRITISH and the only fair way of dispersing this income would be to apportion it thoughout the UK based on the demographic of the population.
Originally posted by G_man
Regarding the Oil off Scotland- The bulk of the income went straight to the English Government.
Originally posted by G_man
Higher unemloyment, greater % of people living in poverty, worse heath record than some third world countries. Parts of Glasgow have higher infant mortality rates than parts of Africa!! Yeah we are all so greatful for the English looking after us.
Originally posted by G_man
We in Scotland still have very little control of our own affairs and devolved parliment or no we are still ruled by the English.
Originally posted by G_man
We were a sepperate country until we were invaded and our culture was suppressed by your English "Hammer of the Scots"
Originally posted by G_man
We don't want to get into the history here since Scotland, Wales and Ireland were all occupied by the English and have had a fairly poor time of it ever since.
Originally posted by G_man
Dont try to tell us that we have a controlling influence in English affairs, we still barely have any control of our own!
Could i also please please please ask people to stop refering to the English as being the same as British. Very sore point....we are PART of the United Kingdom same as Scotland, Wales and NI....although the only institution that we have a say in is the UK parliament
Scotland has more say over its national government now than England does. In fact Scotland has also has influence over English legislation by having representatives at Westminster.
700 years ago
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not 'countries' in the legal sense of things. For example could Scotland declare war? could Wales enter into a free trade area? No, it is the UK that would do it as the legal entity.
quote: Scotland has more say over its national government now than England does.
In fact Scotland has also has influence over English legislation by having representatives at Westminster.
These uppity Scots are having a say in the ruling of our country! The impudence!
Could i also please please please ask people to stop refering to the English as being the same as British. Very sore point....we are PART of the United Kingdom same as Scotland, Wales and NI....although the only institution that we have a say in is the UK parliament
Originally posted by Nerevar
This is a question that has been plaguing me ever since it started in 1998...
The scottish paliament was projected to cost £50million, it actually cost £431million to build (provided courtesy of the UK taxpayer) and costs £6.7million a year to runb (again from the UK taxpayer)
The Welsh Assembly cost £67million
The Stornont (Northern Irish) Assembly another £50million -
So if anyone can give a reason as to why an English assembly has not been proposed please let me know.
Originally posted by dawa
Fine then.
I say lets all just split up and go our seperate ways! You English can have a government all of your own, you can call yourselves English, you can go to war with anyone you like.
We'll bugger off and take our oil n gas with us, Wales you can come to.
[edit on 27-5-2006 by dawa]