|
Post by ozneil on Dec 29, 2013 23:28:56 GMT -1
An impression was "too good to be rue" That is my impression. but to reiterate I DONT KNOW ENOUGH TO GIVE AN INFORMED OPINION! that is my impressiopn and only an impression but at best of times I'm a cynical bastard.
You cant compare compare it to Australia it is very different. It took our guys 14 years to nut out what we wanted. It was two pronged:-
1. Complete independence from UK (last break away 1n 197?? when High Court replaced Privvy Council as highest court)
2. Federation of the 6 states
We had a draft constitution and states rights all agreed before the referendum, we were not buying a pig in a poke
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 23:36:02 GMT -1
You sought and got independence from the UK.
Did that hope, in its infancy, turn out to be too good to be true?
Or should we be expecting Australia to come back into the Union any time soon?
<no, thought not..>
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 29, 2013 23:57:16 GMT -1
Yes after 14 years of haggling to get the ideal. 1887 was first Federation conference. Had been discussed for yonks before then but a bit different it was really 6 different Colonies becoming a Commonwealth. We had been self governing in effect from 1850s SA brought in votes for women in 1867 I think. NZ separated from NSW in 1841
So you cant compare us with your situation. Ours was Federation in 1901
BTW ONCE AGAIN I SAY I DONT KNOW ENOUGH TO GIVE A VALID OPINION one way or other Till I see "NO" arguments, I just wouldnt know, and even then I wouldn't be pretentous enough to hazard an opinion as to whether you should or shouldnt.
It is entirely up to you.
I just hope for your people you make the right decision
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 0:48:13 GMT -1
Well forgive me, Oz but I don't really see that much difference between Australia 'haggling' to separate from the UK and the Scottish indy movement. The principle's the EXACT same. It's about self-government--- NOT the cowering acceptance of policies dictated from afar. Policies that don't take account of local needs, policies that are borne out of keeping the status quo and all powers in the South East of England. It wasn't good enough for Australia------ you wanted and got independence, you guys didn't want remote bossy bstrds running your affairs and HEY! neither do WE! Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith. You guys did it and have prospered. We're next.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 30, 2013 1:05:48 GMT -1
Well forgive me, Oz but I don't really see that much difference between Australia 'haggling' to separate from the UK and the Scottish indy movement. The principle's the EXACT same. Its not see belowIt's about self-government--- NOT the cowering acceptance of policies dictated from afar. Policies that don't take account of local needs, policies that are borne out of keeping the status quo and all powers in the South East of England. It wasn't good enough for Australia------ you wanted and got independence, you guys didn't want remote bossy bstrds running your affairs and HEY! neither do WE! Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith. You guys did it and have prospered. We're next. Your comparison is not valid. It is entirely different IT WAS ABOUT FEDERATION (not independence from UK we had that from 1850s as separate colonies ) It was about the joining of the 6 states under a new constitution which was as a side effect almost entirely separate from UK. Over the next 70 years the last remaining UK Crown connections (NOT UK PARLIAMENT) links have been removed. It would be more like Scotland joining into a federation with England than the other way round. Gees dont they teach history any more. My Country's name should give a clue THE COMMONWEALTH Of AUSTRALIA
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 30, 2013 1:36:18 GMT -1
I sincerely hope you make the right decision for your country. It is a tremendous leap of faith.
So Fingers crossed for you. Should, heaven forbid, you fail you must convince your people to vote SNP at UK elections (how many Electorates do you have?) and if you can win most of Scottish seats that will provide a voting block in Westminster that none of the major parties can ignore
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Dec 30, 2013 6:59:40 GMT -1
I sincerely hope you make the right decision for your country. It is a tremendous leap of faith. So Fingers crossed for you. Should, heaven forbid, you fail you must convince your people to vote SNP at UK elections (how many Electorates do you have?) and if you can win most of Scottish seats that will provide a voting block in Westminster that none of the major parties can ignore Actually they can, there's only about 60 Scottish MPs at westminster, think only once since WW2 has Scottish MPs ( LIEBOOR) in @1974/5 decided on who governs the UK - there are more than 500 English MPs ranked against the total from Scotland Wales & Norn Irn. We cant have a constitution, draft or otherwise or anything similar as the unionist parties refuse to discuss anything like that - last thing westminster wants is a written constitution for Scotland or the UK for that matter - much better for them to waffle about our unwritten one - much easier to bend its"rules" when it suits them
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 30, 2013 7:06:53 GMT -1
Look at it this way.
What was the majority at an election? if less than the SNP numbers in next election the SNP will hold balance of power.
Say Ruling parties' majority was 20 seats & SNP held 30 seats both major parties would be falling over themselves to get SNP co-operation
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Dec 30, 2013 8:20:40 GMT -1
Look at it this way. What was the majority at an election? if less than the SNP numbers in next election the SNP will hold balance of power. Say Ruling parties' majority was 20 seats & SNP held 30 seats both major parties would be falling over themselves to get SNP co-operation Westminster dont really do minority governments - no unionist party will entertain a coalition including "nationalists" LIEBOOR had their chance to do this in 2010 - a rainbow coalition against teh tories - but couldn't countenance an agreement with the SNP - goes against the grain - google "Bain Principle" The fact that engerland has over 500 MPs out of a total of @650 ish means that the other 3 countries get the government engerland voted for - there is no proportionality at westminster, say akin to USA were in either the senate or the house of reps, every state has an equal amount of representatives - uk "democracy" doesn't work like that. As a second chamber we have the unelected Lords, there are no nationalist peers - the red, yellow and blue tories control that always, placemen who have either bought their seat or served the party well - see earlier post on written constitution not being wanted.
|
|