Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Don't waste your energy Auston.. the blokes clearly off his tits.

None-the-less, well said and well researched AustonT.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Surveys regarding support for independence have yielded different results, though they often find that between 10 and 15% of Welsh desire independence from the United Kingdom.[10] A 2001 survey for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% of people polled favoured independence.[11] A 2007 survey by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales found that 12% of those questioned supported independence, down slightly from 14% in 1997.[12] A poll taken by BBC Wales Newsnight in 2007 found that 20% of Welsh questioned favoured independence.[10] A 2006 poll taken by Wales on Sunday found the number to be as high as 52%, although the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest.[13]

Easy solution, cut off North Wales. We don't like it anyway.

Then there's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/01/welsh-independence-supported-by-only-7-of-residents_n_1312660.html

7% is interesting, I'd bet that there's a higher percentage of English who would want Welsh independence than Welsh that do. I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Just think of the job stimulus if Wales and Scotland devolved - Hundreds of jobs for rebuilding all the castles along the Welsh and Scottish border to keep out the starving, unemployed and homeless Scots and Welsh

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just think of the job stimulus if Wales and Scotland devolved - Hundreds of jobs for rebuilding all the castles along the Welsh and Scottish border to keep out the starving, unemployed and homeless Scots and Welsh

And the alterations making Hadrian's Wall 30ft high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

Yeap. Exactly.

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

And currently we are paying for benefits we don't get. Which is unfair.

dæl wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

And currently we are paying for benefits we don't get. Which is unfair.

Its entirely possible to give yourself the benefits. But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

Someone has to pay for it. If you add Englands universities on top of Wales and Scotland...whos going to front up the cash? Is it going to come out of the funds set aside for Wales and Scotland?

Apparently its hard enough to get just what we have funded.

Mr Hyena wrote:

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

Someone has to pay for it. If you add Englands universities on top of Wales and Scotland...whos going to front up the cash?

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

I don't think that'll be accepted by even the English in a time of austerity.

Mr Hyena wrote:

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

I don't think that'll be accepted by even the English in a time of austerity.

But it is, because that is what is happening.

I mean putting additional taxes...on top of that.

Mr Hyena wrote:I mean putting additional taxes...on top of that.

Restructuring the budget does not mean higher taxes. It means different spending.


A good analogy of the current situation is that of the benefit scrounger with the massive telly and the numerous holidays while the working family down the street can't have such things, these countries are living far more comfortably while the country that is actually paying for their comfort is less so.

I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

Well, I was obviously taking the piss, but....

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

Well, I was obviously taking the piss, but....

I didn't seriously think you planned on telling cancer sufferers to walk it off.

I'm happy with the NHS about 90%, I just don't think most mental health stuff should be covered. You know, cos its too hard to definitively prove that kinda thing.

Like if you have TB or AIDS or Cancer or something, you just have it. But if you have "bad dreams cos my tits are too small" you can get a boob job? Or a sex change? Or liposuction? People say "Oh i just feel like.. life isn't worth living.. i should just.. sniff.. kill myself ... so give me a fanny/grow my tits/send me to Barbados"

I reckon we should do 90% of the stuff we do, but if you want something related to mental well being you need to commit to 60 days in an aslyum! Where treatment by professionals could possibly sort your issues out. That way, we can pay to treat people that do it, and we know they are for real, because they went through the proper treatment, and also we give a real chance to people that could be assisted by psychiatry, but we will also cut out most of the frivolous stuff, cos most people wouldn't be willing to spend a large amount of time in a nuthouse for a claim that wasn't 100% serious.

Smart eh?! I should be in charge!

I must add as a disclaimer that I have drank 12 pints and though it makes perfect sense at the moment, I will proof read this post tomorrow and retain the right to delete everything in ten hours time if it makes no sense at all.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

I'm not going to address the justice of the historical situation, because I think we have to move on from where we are now, and the truth is that England does not currently attempt to suppress or enslave the other nations. If anything they are doing quite well, with their own parliaments, subsidised language services, central government transfers (the Barnet formula) and so on.

Staying in the Union is the current default state, as no mechanisms yet exist even for taking a decision to break it up. The question is what would the benefits be for breaking up.

I think breaking up would be hugely difficult and expensive, and none of the nations -- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland -- would be likely to end up more successful afterwards, though possibly England would benefit the most, for various reasons, such as the cessation of the subsidies currently paid to the other regions, and the return of government jobs to the centre (e.g. the DVLA, currently based in Swansea.)

As an instance of the difficulties, would the EU be likely to accept the new nations as members, and how much subsidy would it be able to afford to pay in the current economic crisis? (It was EU subsidies that turned Eire into the Celtic Tiger.)

Speaking from England, I know my perspective is different, so perhaps I am wrong about all this.

Bongo_clive wrote:And honestly, if you don't know why the Scots consider themselves colonised, you've a lot of reading to do.

Are you kidding? Even Alex Salmond himself said that "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated"

BTW: Alex Salmond is the head of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of the Scottish parliament. But I guess you already knew that as you're such an authority on Scotland..

But seriously, do you not see the irony of your words? It's OK to invade other countries because YOU have decided what YOU think is best for everyone? Who gave the English that mandate? The English decided that they knew best, so they would use their military might to shape the world to their vision. Don't you realise the Americans only joined the war with guarantees that once they'd finished toppling the German Empire, the British would dismantle theirs?

Who said India had to be united? Who said that? They certainly didn't. They were doing quite nicely before the English stormed through there spreading war and disease, exploiting a country which is only now recovering.

Did you read anything I said earlier about "standards of the era"? Ah yes, apparently you didn't read it as you still seem to think that it's the English Empire rather than the British Empire.

That's exactly what the Nazi's did!!

Are you seriously going to 'Godwin Law' this thread already? I thought you were a smart archaeologist who's far too good to "educate cretins."

and then you answer the questions:

Why is Gandhi so famous? What did he work tirelessly for?
Why did all the countries of the Empire actively seek to gain independence?
Why did the Australians seriously consider removing the Queen as their head of state?
Why do the Australian Aborigines have a tent city demanding back the rights to the land the British stole from them?
Why did the Irish fight tooth and nail to get rid of the British? What is Bloody Sunday?
Why did Wales vote for devolution?
Why did Scotland vote for devolution?

1. Ghandi wanted independence. I don't think anyone is pretending otherwise.
2.False. not all of them seeked to gain independence and even some of the ones who did still have the Queen as their Head of Sate.
3. And why did they not?
4. Because some people think that racism is solved by more racism.
5. False. Some Irish did, but not all. Even some (and IIRC a majority) of the Catholics don't want to join the Republic. As for Bloody Sunday- yes it happend, but does that make the IRA's crimes OK? Especially considering that you don't see the IRA making inquiries.....

SDFarsight wrote:

Why did the Australians seriously consider removing the Queen as their head of state?

3. And why did they not?

Because when it was put to a referendum, instead of just asking whether we should become a republic, the Government deliberately worded the question to ask if we should replace the Queen with a President elected by Parliament (rather than by the people)... which a large percentage of the Republican movement didn't want, and so they voted against it in the hope that a later referendum would offer a different model.