JD's independence poll...

Just thought i would poll this and get the general gist of things on the forum...

I know I've a tidy rear, but try to stay focused on the poll folks.

I voted on behalf of Mr. C.....his heart says FREEEEEEEDOOOOMMMMM, but he is smart he is and knows that it just isn't viable so his head says stay in the UK.

Cass wrote:I voted on behalf of Mr. C.....his heart says FREEEEEEEDOOOOMMMMM, but he is smart he is and knows that it just isn't viable so his head says stay in the UK.

  

Thanks Cass, tell Mr.C thanks for his vote! ::D:: 

I voted for OH - Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooooom!! ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: 

Definitely voted for them to eff off.

Shame they don't have the guts.

 

Cry Freeeeeedom! OR DEATH....

Sassy wrote:I voted for OH - Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooooom!! ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: 

.    

Lone Wolf wrote: 

Cry Freeeeeedom!     OR DEATH....

Nice one Bee, it will be near death for the treasury once Scotland' commodity revenues stop flowing through London!

..should Scotland vote yes.

I will feel sorry for the many good people of England if there is yet another RW government elected after a possible Scottish departure   

So much crap about one supporting the other financially; as if the whole debate should be about money. Whatever happened to heritage and shared culture and history? We have been a United Kingdom for over 300 years and those were the most prosperous centuries in the history of both nations. If the Scots go how long before Wales and Northern Ireland followed? What of our overseas territories? We benefit strategically, culturally and politically as one nation. Fortunately most Scots seem to agree.

Eilzel wrote:So much crap about one supporting the other financially; as if the whole debate should be about money. Whatever happened to heritage and shared culture and history? We have been a United Kingdom for over 300 years and those were the most prosperous centuries in the history of both nations. If the Scots go how long before Wales and Northern Ireland followed? What of our overseas territories? We benefit strategically, culturally and politically as one nation. Fortunately most Scots seem to agree.

Eilzel, tbh ...the daily mail and believers of it, as well as blackmail from other political parties are playing their  part In this..

But I'm a believer in that if a country wants to go it alone, then they should have that right, whichever country that is, what some are pissed off hearing is the nonsensical bleats about how Scotland would never manage it alone!!!...despite research and facts saying the opposite, Scotland as you may have heard would be a far richer country than England...

And if we do go it alone, it's those low paid , hard working English who will be left to no doubt tolerate many future RW governments...

The snobs, I couldn't give a monkeys about....you know, those who look down their beaks at others, I just can't stand that sort.

I hate centralized governments and think all countries should be independent, even Wales. I did think at the outset that the Scots stood no chance of winning a yes vote, but now that I hear Cyclops Brown has got involved on staying in the UK that's pretty much put the kiss of death on that, so they might just do it and leave.

Tess. wrote:I hate centralized governments and think all countries should be independent, even Wales.  I did think at the outset that the Scots stood no chance of winning a yes vote, but now that I hear Cyclops Brown has got involved on staying in the UK that's pretty much put the kiss of death on that, so they might just do it and leave.

Yeah, Gordon is involved now...there was a poll in my local paper to see if people thought he would have an effect on the campaign's result, most voted no in that one.

I agree that every country should be independent if they so wish and lie, you I thought for sure that a yes vote was out the windee...but with the three main parties blackmail and people saying daft things of Scotland it seems to have fired up some Scots.

.

Well you have 2 votes for being a cling-on (yourself and Iron) and 6 who want to set you adrift.

Looks like you'll get your wish.

^tess, where does that end though? Should Cornwall be independent? I heard that was what an admittedly tiny number wanted but should they if they wanted? How about those who want London and the SE to break off from the rest of England- it would be one of the richest city states in the world!

And that is what decentralization could lead to of course, lots of rich little city states and tiny countries- at the absolute mercy of the remaining power nations and populations like China, Russia, India etc- not mercy in a military sense either but also economic and in terms of resources.

Decentrilization has no limits; you might well decimate thw political landscape of the world and the ones to benefit would be the superstates.

BigAndy9 wrote:Well you have 2 votes for being a cling-on (yourself and Iron) and 6 who want to set you adrift.

Looks like you'll get your wish.

....oh, I wouldn't say I was a cling on Andy, and neither Irn...

But let's have some fun...  


Over the years, I've witnessed a fair bit of lap bouncing, folk can say here who is bouncing on whose lap the most...I will give my answer(s) in a wee while!!  

I voted for the middle one but not a happy bunny JD..... I like to tick all the boxes for fun but on here no tick and I don't want spots.

gerber wrote:I voted for the middle one but not a happy bunny JD..... I like to tick all the boxes for fun but on here no tick and I don't want spots.

Ah , thanks for you vote Gerbs, I forgot you like voting and ticking!!, only a poll on posters can fix that!!!

I shall do my best next time!!  

Eilzel wrote:^tess, where does that end though? Should Cornwall be independent? I heard that was what an admittedly tiny number wanted but should they if they wanted? How about those who want London and the SE to break off from the rest of England- it would be one of the richest city states in the world!

And that is what decentralization could lead to of course, lots of rich little city states and tiny countries- at the absolute mercy of the remaining power nations and populations like China, Russia, India etc- not mercy in a military sense either but also economic and in terms of resources.

Decentrilization has no limits; you might well decimate thw political landscape of the world and the ones to benefit would be the superstates.

Iceland.   

Tess. wrote:

Eilzel wrote:^tess, where does that end though? Should Cornwall be independent? I heard that was what an admittedly tiny number wanted but should they if they wanted? How about those who want London and the SE to break off from the rest of England- it would be one of the richest city states in the world!

And that is what decentralization could lead to of course, lots of rich little city states and tiny countries- at the absolute mercy of the remaining power nations and populations like China, Russia, India etc- not mercy in a military sense either but also economic and in terms of resources.

Decentrilization has no limits; you might well decimate thw political landscape of the world and the ones to benefit would be the superstates.

Iceland.    

That doesn't really address my point you know.

Tess. wrote:

Eilzel wrote:^tess, where does that end though? Should Cornwall be independent? I heard that was what an admittedly tiny number wanted but should they if they wanted? How about those who want London and the SE to break off from the rest of England- it would be one of the richest city states in the world!

And that is what decentralization could lead to of course, lots of rich little city states and tiny countries- at the absolute mercy of the remaining power nations and populations like China, Russia, India etc- not mercy in a military sense either but also economic and in terms of resources.

Decentrilization has no limits; you might well decimate thw political landscape of the world and the ones to benefit would be the superstates.

Iceland.    

All those spurting Geysers..........

Now you are just talking dirty Gerbs   

Sassy wrote:Now you are just talking dirty Gerbs   

Geography might be the number one subject ticked in my school report........ ::dunno:: 

Ok, I'll believe you lol

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Iceland.    

That doesn't really address my point you know.

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do. And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

Tess. wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

That doesn't really address my point you know.

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

A very point Tess. Look at them go now......... Had their bankers in court as well..... Seem to have things pretty well sussed.

We do still have the Commonwealth but a little something in my small brain says the EU restrict what we can trade with them and vice versa......

Tess. wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

That doesn't really address my point you know.

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

Street by street independence?  

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

How far should they go?

Well how about BigAndy9sville?

Everybody's invited, as long as you're white, have the passports of yourself, parents and grandparents showing Englishness and you're wearing your jackboots (whatever they are).

 :::hitler: 

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

Yeah - Republic of Tooting!

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:

My point is that a little country like Iceland's a hell of a lot better off since it told the EU what to do.  And your point about tiny countries being at risk - there are such things as alliances: NATO for defence and what we used to have, the Commonwealth, for trade...

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

Hi Eilzel 

I am sure Shady would love that, an independent Cornwall, which is not beyond the realms of fantasy being as they do have their own Celtic language though hardly used. I think though what you have to ask really is breaking off into smaller nations the answer, as quite rightly you are saying? If Scotland want their independence then to me it would be a shame, due to the history. What I do see though is history where nations have broken up into smaller independent nations of which to be honest many now struggle. Take again America, its power and Economics just like China, have come off being one unified nation, though they could have separated at some points in time to smaller independent nations, in fact in the states this did happen. What has to be asked is if nationalism is really a viable option, because it does weaken a nation for access to resources, wealth and security, sadly this is important. If anything yes there should be centralized power placed within each part of the UK, England included, but what would Scotland achieve which they do not already have now. Great Britain is unique to most, we are separate nations in a way, unified as one as well and that is why I fail to see why going seperate ways is off any benefit, though I am sure those who are Scottish will see otherwise.

Fair play to them if they do go that way, but any English saying good riddance are just being spiteful and not thankful for the Scottish contribution to Britain, me myself I hope they stay, as we make for a better nation united together

PhilDidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

But what you are saying is that countries should be free to break up into however many pieces they like - which by default includes potentially an independent Cornwall and a city-state of London- how far do you think decentralization should go if it is simply down to the will of people of a certain area?

Hi Eilzel 

I am sure Shady would love that, an independent Cornwall, which is not beyond the realms of fantasy being as they do have their own Celtic language though hardly used. I think though what you have to ask really is breaking off into smaller nations the answer, as quite rightly you are saying? If Scotland want their independence then to me it would be a shame, due to the history. What I do see though is history where nations have broken up into smaller independent nations of which to be honest many now struggle. Take again America, its power and Economics just like China, have come off being one unified nation, though they could have separated at some points in time to smaller independent nations, in fact in the states this did happen. What has to be asked is if nationalism is really a viable option, because it does weaken a nation for access to resources, wealth and security, sadly this is important. If anything yes there should be centralized power placed within each part of the UK, England included, but what would Scotland achieve which they do not already have now. Great Britain is unique to most, we are separate nations in a way, unified as one as well and that is why I fail to see why going seperate ways is off any benefit, though I am sure those who are Scottish will see otherwise.

Fair play to them if they do go that way, but any English saying good riddance are just being spiteful and not thankful for the Scottish contribution to Britain, me myself I hope they stay, as we make for a better nation united together

Well said didge! Pretty much captures my feeling on this too. Uncertain futures mean nations are stronger when they are closer- I know there are some in America (and Texas is one the springs to mind) that would like their state to separate from the Union- but I imagine most Americans would recoil in horror at such an idea, or at least frown at it in obscenity- perhaps some of our Yankee friends here can tell us   

Eilzel wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hi Eilzel 

I am sure Shady would love that, an independent Cornwall, which is not beyond the realms of fantasy being as they do have their own Celtic language though hardly used. I think though what you have to ask really is breaking off into smaller nations the answer, as quite rightly you are saying? If Scotland want their independence then to me it would be a shame, due to the history. What I do see though is history where nations have broken up into smaller independent nations of which to be honest many now struggle. Take again America, its power and Economics just like China, have come off being one unified nation, though they could have separated at some points in time to smaller independent nations, in fact in the states this did happen. What has to be asked is if nationalism is really a viable option, because it does weaken a nation for access to resources, wealth and security, sadly this is important. If anything yes there should be centralized power placed within each part of the UK, England included, but what would Scotland achieve which they do not already have now. Great Britain is unique to most, we are separate nations in a way, unified as one as well and that is why I fail to see why going seperate ways is off any benefit, though I am sure those who are Scottish will see otherwise.

Fair play to them if they do go that way, but any English saying good riddance are just being spiteful and not thankful for the Scottish contribution to Britain, me myself I hope they stay, as we make for a better nation united together

Well said didge! Pretty much captures my feeling on this too. Uncertain futures mean nations are stronger when they are closer- I know there are some in America (and Texas is one the springs to mind) that would like their state to separate from the Union- but I imagine most Americans would recoil in horror at such an idea, or at least frown at it in obscenity- perhaps some of our Yankee friends here can tell us   

Well all I can say is that, if you scale it down and deal with the concept of centralization, looking back at every single thing that's been centralized it's gone downhill. When I was a kid there were small London boroughs. Each one had its own small town hall, knew it's people, outgoings were small and everything worked fine. Then they joined up and immediately bigger town halls were built, and like Topsy they grew and grew, so you end up paying for ten times the number of staff; scale up and you get the EU, spending billions on bigger and more splendid Euro-palaces, costs spiral out of control, more senseless rules and regulations come into force and people become numbers, statistics.

Even over here, there used to be little offices for each council department, I'd walk into the car tax office and get served straight away - then they merged everything into one magnificent new building, it takes you half an hour to find a parking space, there are queues of people and it takes ten times longer to get dealt with. I know you'll say that's nothing to do with independent countries, but it is - it's the same thing. Independence works better, centralization's a disaster.

Eilzel wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Hi Eilzel 

I am sure Shady would love that, an independent Cornwall, which is not beyond the realms of fantasy being as they do have their own Celtic language though hardly used. I think though what you have to ask really is breaking off into smaller nations the answer, as quite rightly you are saying? If Scotland want their independence then to me it would be a shame, due to the history. What I do see though is history where nations have broken up into smaller independent nations of which to be honest many now struggle. Take again America, its power and Economics just like China, have come off being one unified nation, though they could have separated at some points in time to smaller independent nations, in fact in the states this did happen. What has to be asked is if nationalism is really a viable option, because it does weaken a nation for access to resources, wealth and security, sadly this is important. If anything yes there should be centralized power placed within each part of the UK, England included, but what would Scotland achieve which they do not already have now. Great Britain is unique to most, we are separate nations in a way, unified as one as well and that is why I fail to see why going seperate ways is off any benefit, though I am sure those who are Scottish will see otherwise.

Fair play to them if they do go that way, but any English saying good riddance are just being spiteful and not thankful for the Scottish contribution to Britain, me myself I hope they stay, as we make for a better nation united together

Well said didge! Pretty much captures my feeling on this too. Uncertain futures mean nations are stronger when they are closer- I know there are some in America (and Texas is one the springs to mind) that would like their state to separate from the Union- but I imagine most Americans would recoil in horror at such an idea, or at least frown at it in obscenity- perhaps some of our Yankee friends here can tell us   

Believe it or not there are a lot more than Texas....it all goes back to States Rights which are in the constitution - The federal govt was really just a way of bringing together vastly different states under 1 roof but still allowing them vast autonomy in certain areas but now the lines have become so blurred and consequently there are constant lawsuits headed to the supreme court for the very same reason.

personally i don't ever want any of the states to leave the union - we started as a nation (evenutally) and that is the way it should be - rather different for Scotland. They were basically taken over cause Liz 1 did not have kids. I read somewhere that California actually has the 6th largest economy in the WORLD.

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well said didge! Pretty much captures my feeling on this too. Uncertain futures mean nations are stronger when they are closer- I know there are some in America (and Texas is one the springs to mind) that would like their state to separate from the Union- but I imagine most Americans would recoil in horror at such an idea, or at least frown at it in obscenity- perhaps some of our Yankee friends here can tell us   

Believe it or not there are a lot more than Texas....it all goes back to States Rights which are in the constitution - The federal govt was really just a way of bringing together vastly different states under 1 roof but still allowing them vast autonomy in certain areas but now the lines have become so blurred and consequently there are constant lawsuits headed to the supreme court for the very same reason.

personally i don't ever want any of the states to leave the union - we started as a nation (evenutally) and that is the way it should be - rather different for Scotland. They were basically taken over cause Liz 1 did not have kids. I read somewhere that California actually has the 6th largest economy in the WORLD.

I can believe it of California; I'm quite sure some states will boost others but of course as I'm sure you agree these things are not all about money.

Scotland wasn't a full political partner with England until 1707 though; even if we did 'break up' now, we'd still have the same Queen and the situation would have returned to its pre-Union but post Liz I scenario. Scotland and England becoming the UK was an agreement, a partnership- they weren't colonized or conquered; and even if you do take James I & VI being the start of it all, the King was a Scot   

Tess. wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well said didge! Pretty much captures my feeling on this too. Uncertain futures mean nations are stronger when they are closer- I know there are some in America (and Texas is one the springs to mind) that would like their state to separate from the Union- but I imagine most Americans would recoil in horror at such an idea, or at least frown at it in obscenity- perhaps some of our Yankee friends here can tell us   

Well all I can say is that, if you scale it down and deal with the concept of centralization, looking back at every single thing that's been centralized it's gone downhill.  When I was a kid there were small London boroughs.  Each one had its own small town hall, knew it's people, outgoings were small and everything worked fine.  Then they joined up and immediately bigger town halls were built, and like Topsy they grew and grew, so you end up paying for ten times the number of staff; scale up and you get the EU, spending billions on bigger and more splendid Euro-palaces, costs spiral out of control, more senseless rules and regulations come into force and people become numbers, statistics.  

Even over here, there used to be little offices for each council department, I'd walk into the car tax office and get served straight away - then they merged everything into one magnificent new building, it takes you half an hour to find a parking space, there are queues of people and it takes ten times longer to get dealt with.  I know you'll say that's nothing to do with independent countries, but it is - it's the same thing.  Independence works better, centralization's a disaster.

Independence works for small populations Tess. Do you think for example, if London became independent, that suddenly there'd be no queues or congestion of waiting around? People cite Iceland, Norway etc as bastions of how wonderful a country can be- well they do have relatively tiny populations- not difficult to maintain a sense of organization and familiarity when you have 12 people in a town (I exaggerate somewhat   )...

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:

Believe it or not there are a lot more than Texas....it all goes back to States Rights which are in the constitution - The federal govt was really just a way of bringing together vastly different states under 1 roof but still allowing them vast autonomy in certain areas but now the lines have become so blurred and consequently there are constant lawsuits headed to the supreme court for the very same reason.

personally i don't ever want any of the states to leave the union - we started as a nation (evenutally) and that is the way it should be - rather different for Scotland. They were basically taken over cause Liz 1 did not have kids. I read somewhere that California actually has the 6th largest economy in the WORLD.

I can believe it of California; I'm quite sure some states will boost others but of course as I'm sure you agree these things are not all about money.

Scotland wasn't a full political partner with England until 1707 though; even if we did 'break up' now, we'd still have the same Queen and the situation would have returned to its pre-Union but post Liz I scenario. Scotland and England becoming the UK was an agreement, a partnership- they weren't colonized or conquered; and even if you do take James I & VI being the start of it all, the King was a Scot   

Well of course he was - there is no way he would have turned down being King of England with all the wealth that entailed (he was a strange one was our James) - but I think that a lot of the Scottish nobels had been bought off to agree to the "informal takeover" - they had all played both sides for so long and it was all about getting as much power and money and lands as they could get their greedy little hands on. Hence the overthrow of Mary QOS - it was a political power play - although she didn't help herself one little bit when it came to abduction by Bothwell and the silly moo should have gone straight to France instead of seeking help and asylum from Liz....

sorry I digress.....at the end of the day Scotland was conquered albeit without much bloodshed.

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I can believe it of California; I'm quite sure some states will boost others but of course as I'm sure you agree these things are not all about money.

Scotland wasn't a full political partner with England until 1707 though; even if we did 'break up' now, we'd still have the same Queen and the situation would have returned to its pre-Union but post Liz I scenario. Scotland and England becoming the UK was an agreement, a partnership- they weren't colonized or conquered; and even if you do take James I & VI being the start of it all, the King was a Scot   

Well of course he was - there is no way he would have turned down being King of England with all the wealth that entailed (he was a strange one was our James) - but I think that a lot of the Scottish nobels had been bought off to agree to the "informal takeover" - they had all played both sides for so long and it was all about getting as much power and money and lands as they could get their greedy little hands on. Hence the overthrow of Mary QOS - it was a political power play - although she didn't help herself one little bit when it came to abduction by Bothwell and the silly moo should have gone straight to France instead of seeking help and asylum from Liz....

sorry I digress.....at the end of the day Scotland was conquered albeit without much bloodshed.

Wasn't everything power politics back then; that's how nations are born- I don't see too many Germans of today in the various provinces saying they want to break away since it was only Bismark's bullying they are together in the first place   

Besides the Scots benefited as much as the rest of the UK from being the leaders of the British Empire, which was itself a major draw to the Union in the first place. I think we'll agree to disagree on our interpretation of 'conquered'   

Eilzel wrote:

Cass wrote:

Well of course he was - there is no way he would have turned down being King of England with all the wealth that entailed (he was a strange one was our James) - but I think that a lot of the Scottish nobels had been bought off to agree to the "informal takeover" - they had all played both sides for so long and it was all about getting as much power and money and lands as they could get their greedy little hands on. Hence the overthrow of Mary QOS - it was a political power play - although she didn't help herself one little bit when it came to abduction by Bothwell and the silly moo should have gone straight to France instead of seeking help and asylum from Liz....

sorry I digress.....at the end of the day Scotland was conquered albeit without much bloodshed.

Wasn't everything power politics back then; that's how nations are born- I don't see too many Germans of today in the various provinces saying they want to break away since it was only Bismark's bullying they are together in the first place   

Besides the Scots benefited as much as the rest of the UK from being the leaders of the British Empire, which was itself a major draw to the Union in the first place. I think we'll agree to disagree on our interpretation of 'conquered'   

Hey being married to a Scot for 24 years has had some influence on me. I even have a bloody picture of Bannockburn in my dining room. 700 years this June.

(this would now be the place for FTL to insert a smiley face wearing a kilt and blowing on bagpipes but alas I am not her)

This is ridiculous. The UK should be part of the Nation of Europe.           

Cass wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Wasn't everything power politics back then; that's how nations are born- I don't see too many Germans of today in the various provinces saying they want to break away since it was only Bismark's bullying they are together in the first place   

Besides the Scots benefited as much as the rest of the UK from being the leaders of the British Empire, which was itself a major draw to the Union in the first place. I think we'll agree to disagree on our interpretation of 'conquered'   

Hey being married to a Scot for 24 years has had some influence on me. I even have a bloody picture of Bannockburn in my dining room. 700 years this June.

(this would now be the place for FTL to insert a smiley face wearing a kilt and blowing on bagpipes but alas I am not her)

Hey Cass love it!!!...smiley Queen FTL....give our Cass what she wants,,,please put a bagpipe playing smilie up!!!!!!!!  

Eilzel wrote:

Tess. wrote:
Well all I can say is that, if you scale it down and deal with the concept of centralization, looking back at every single thing that's been centralized it's gone downhill.  When I was a kid there were small London boroughs.  Each one had its own small town hall, knew it's people, outgoings were small and everything worked fine.  Then they joined up and immediately bigger town halls were built, and like Topsy they grew and grew, so you end up paying for ten times the number of staff; scale up and you get the EU, spending billions on bigger and more splendid Euro-palaces, costs spiral out of control, more senseless rules and regulations come into force and people become numbers, statistics.  

Even over here, there used to be little offices for each council department, I'd walk into the car tax office and get served straight away - then they merged everything into one magnificent new building, it takes you half an hour to find a parking space, there are queues of people and it takes ten times longer to get dealt with.  I know you'll say that's nothing to do with independent countries, but it is - it's the same thing.  Independence works better, centralization's a disaster.

Independence works for small populations Tess. Do you think for example, if London became independent, that suddenly there'd be no queues or congestion of waiting around? People cite Iceland, Norway etc as bastions of how wonderful a country can be- well they do have relatively tiny populations- not difficult to maintain a sense of organization and familiarity when you have 12 people in a town (I exaggerate somewhat   )...

I wasn't being serious about the Republic of Tooting - I never even mentioned making parts of England independent - you did. I'm talking about separate countries being independent, i.e. England, and forming alliances with friendly countries to help each other, but not to be ruled by them! I think England would manage somehow.   

More or less agree with Les "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"  I think we're all stronger united than going our separate ways.
Besides what the hell would they have to complain and whine  about if they got independence ?   

Stephenmarra wrote:More or less agree with Les "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"  I think we're all stronger united than going our separate ways.
Besides what the hell would they have to complain and whine  about if they got independence ?   

well you could say the same thing about the English - although there is always Wales to pick on  ::hndbg::

Cass wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:More or less agree with Les "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"  I think we're all stronger united than going our separate ways.
Besides what the hell would they have to complain and whine  about if they got independence ?   

well you could say the same thing about the English - although there is always Wales to pick on  ::hndbg::

Hmmm ! Not really, we English whine about as you say the Welsh, Irish and the French also north v south, whereas those north of  the border only have us.

Stephenmarra wrote:

Cass wrote:

well you could say the same thing about the English - although there is always Wales to pick on  ::hndbg::

Hmmm ! Not really, we English whine about as you say the Welsh, Irish and the French also north v south, whereas those north of  the border only have us.

...but your a Scotsman living in England are you not Stephen?

Just the way you worded 'we English' as if you were English!

Tess, I was answering to your point of supporting decentralisation in general, a point of yours you seem to gave actually forgotten about- this is the problem see when some presents an argument a you respond to a number if points with one word (Iceland), you have ended up forgetting your own post I responded to haha

Joy Division wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:
Hmmm ! Not really, we English whine about as you say the Welsh, Irish and the French also north v south, whereas those north of  the border only have us.

...but your a Scotsman living in England are you not Stephen?

Just the way you worded 'we English' as if you were English!

No, Cumbrian born and bred although my brother lives over the border, married a Scottish lass , one kid English the other born in Scotland so it's fun when the international  Football or Rugby's  on. To be fair I live less than 20 min's from Scotland.

Stephenmarra wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



...but your a Scotsman living in England are you not Stephen?

Just the way you worded 'we English' as if you were English!

No, Cumbrian born and bred although my brother lives over the border, married a Scottish lass , one kid English the other born in Scotland so it's fun when the international  Football or Rugby's  on. To be fair I live less than 20 min's from Scotland.

it's like that in ours during the Ryder Cup - although I pretend to care, i really feel more like   

Stephenmarra wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



...but your a Scotsman living in England are you not Stephen?

Just the way you worded 'we English' as if you were English!

No, Cumbrian born and bred although my brother lives over the border, married a Scottish lass , one kid English the other born in Scotland so it's fun when the international  Football or Rugby's  on. To be fair I live less than 20 min's from Scotland.

I gotcha Stephen.

You e kind of hot the best of both countries where you are then?...

Been down to the sands centre in Carlisle a couple of times, been to Carlise itself quite often actually!,used to go to the bingo down there, they built a new one not far from where the old one was.


..we won a thousand quid on a link game down there back in 1999, teckle!!  

Joy Division wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:


No, Cumbrian born and bred although my brother lives over the border, married a Scottish lass , one kid English the other born in Scotland so it's fun when the international  Football or Rugby's  on. To be fair I live less than 20 min's from Scotland.

I gotcha Stephen.

You e kind of hot the best of both countries where you are then?...

Been down to the sands centre in Carlisle a couple of times, been to Carlise itself quite often actually!,used to go to the bingo down there, they built a new one not far from where the old one was.


..we won a thousand quid on a link game down there  back in 1999, teckle!!  

Two fat ducks.......................  ::hndbg::