| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:35 -0600,
wrote: In article , (Aurora) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:03 -0000, "NY" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 11/01/2014 22:16, Robert wrote: Heathrow wasn't in London when first built! My father worked there in the early 50s and we lived in Bedfont. Going to London was a major expedition involving buses to either Feltham or Hounslow West stations and then the train. Where was the boundary between London and other places defined to be in those days? Was it a 1974 change when the county of Greater London was created? When the neighbouring counties had boundaries that met close to central London, where was the boundary of "London" deemed to be, and did it gradually change as greenfield sites got filled in? Greater London was formed in 1965. Prior to that there was, the almost sane, smaller, London County Council. Prior to 1889 Middlesex was the county at the heart of England, although only its South Eastern part was urbanized. IIRC until 1889 the City of London was outwith any County. The area of the County of London was defined long before 1889. The Metropolitan Board of Works covered the same area and was formed in 1854 (IIRC). The Metropolitan Police District (1829) and London Transport Area (1933) were much earlier definitions of Greater London too. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...olice_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ransport_Board. Understood, thank you for sharing. London's government has sadly been subject to endless meddling by central government, partly because it is also located in London. Once again,e emphatically agree. AFIK these 1889 and 1965 are the only times the County of London was extended. Although Greater London disappeared for a while. It is now back as a "region" with a peculiar governance structure. It was never a county as such. London has never had the same local government arrangements as the rest of England. Middlesex was certainly a normal county. AIUI, it excluded the "City of London". The LCC was certainly called a county, although I am aware it was granted extra powers. The borders of the Cities and boroughs within the County were also consolidated into their present monstrous size in 1965. Prior to that were the human scaled boroughs such as Paddington and St Marylebone. In those days democracy was closer to the electorate. Not everywhere. Wandsworth was divided, part going to Lambeth, with Battersea added. the resulting entity was much the same size as the old Metropolitan Borough. Thank you, that was informative. The inner boroughs had lost a lot of population due to the war and post-war reconstruction. In 1918 modern day Tower Hamlets had seven MPs. Now it has one and a half. The old boroughs meant something. Perhaps as London's population increases we will see a return to more localized boroughs. -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:46:19 -0800, Aurora wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:35 -0600, wrote: In article , (Aurora) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:03 -0000, "NY" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 11/01/2014 22:16, Robert wrote: Heathrow wasn't in London when first built! My father worked there in the early 50s and we lived in Bedfont. Going to London was a major expedition involving buses to either Feltham or Hounslow West stations and then the train. Where was the boundary between London and other places defined to be in those days? Was it a 1974 change when the county of Greater London was created? When the neighbouring counties had boundaries that met close to central London, where was the boundary of "London" deemed to be, and did it gradually change as greenfield sites got filled in? Greater London was formed in 1965. Prior to that there was, the almost sane, smaller, London County Council. Prior to 1889 Middlesex was the county at the heart of England, although only its South Eastern part was urbanized. IIRC until 1889 the City of London was outwith any County. The area of the County of London was defined long before 1889. The Metropolitan Board of Works covered the same area and was formed in 1854 (IIRC). It didn't form the same area. Like the Metropolitan Police, it intruded into counties surrounding London but did not replace the local governments in those areas but took over some of their functions. The MBW area was greatly influenced by the course of an assortment of rivers as it was responsible for stuff that doesn't run uphill without help. The Metropolitan Police District (1829) and London Transport Area (1933) were much earlier definitions of Greater London too. They (or rather the associated legislation) defined respectively the "metropolitan police district" and the "London Passenger Transport Area" neither of which ever matched any local authority boundaries until the MPD was matched to Greater London in recent years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...olice_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ransport_Board. Which effectively support what I've just said. Understood, thank you for sharing. London's government has sadly been subject to endless meddling by central government, partly because it is also located in London. Once again,e emphatically agree. AFIK these 1889 and 1965 are the only times the County of London was extended. 1965 wasn't an extension, it was the creation of a different set of local government arrangements which wiped out two administrative counties. Although Greater London disappeared for a while. It is now back as a "region" with a peculiar governance structure. It was never a county as such. London has never had the same local government arrangements as the rest of England. It isn't and wasn't uniform in the rest of England. Middlesex was certainly a normal county. AIUI, it excluded the "City of London". The LCC was certainly called a county, although I am aware it was granted extra powers. Other counties weren't all equal as the result of various odd bits of private legislation but possibly not as different as the County of London. The borders of the Cities and boroughs within the County were also consolidated into their present monstrous size in 1965. Maybe it would have been better to give back some land to surrounding counties, decentralise into them and just have an overall authority to deal with necessary common functions (e.g. transport) but prevent detrimental centralisation either in the centre or in the surrounding counties ? Prior to that were the human scaled boroughs such as Paddington and St Marylebone. In those days democracy was closer to the electorate. Not everywhere. Wandsworth was divided, part going to Lambeth, with Battersea added. the resulting entity was much the same size as the old Metropolitan Borough. Thank you, that was informative. The inner boroughs had lost a lot of population due to the war and post-war reconstruction. In 1918 modern day Tower Hamlets had seven MPs. Now it has one and a half. The old boroughs meant something. Perhaps as London's population increases we will see a return to more localized boroughs. |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
On 12/01/2014 07:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:46:19 -0800, Aurora wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:35 -0600, wrote: In article , (Aurora) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:03 -0000, "NY" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 11/01/2014 22:16, Robert wrote: Heathrow wasn't in London when first built! My father worked there in the early 50s and we lived in Bedfont. Going to London was a major expedition involving buses to either Feltham or Hounslow West stations and then the train. Where was the boundary between London and other places defined to be in those days? Was it a 1974 change when the county of Greater London was created? When the neighbouring counties had boundaries that met close to central London, where was the boundary of "London" deemed to be, and did it gradually change as greenfield sites got filled in? Greater London was formed in 1965. Prior to that there was, the almost sane, smaller, London County Council. Prior to 1889 Middlesex was the county at the heart of England, although only its South Eastern part was urbanized. IIRC until 1889 the City of London was outwith any County. The area of the County of London was defined long before 1889. The Metropolitan Board of Works covered the same area and was formed in 1854 (IIRC). It didn't form the same area. Like the Metropolitan Police, it intruded into counties surrounding London but did not replace the local governments in those areas but took over some of their functions. The MBW area was greatly influenced by the course of an assortment of rivers as it was responsible for stuff that doesn't run uphill without help. The Metropolitan Police District (1829) and London Transport Area (1933) were much earlier definitions of Greater London too. They (or rather the associated legislation) defined respectively the "metropolitan police district" and the "London Passenger Transport Area" neither of which ever matched any local authority boundaries until the MPD was matched to Greater London in recent years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...olice_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ransport_Board. Which effectively support what I've just said. Understood, thank you for sharing. London's government has sadly been subject to endless meddling by central government, partly because it is also located in London. Once again,e emphatically agree. AFIK these 1889 and 1965 are the only times the County of London was extended. 1965 wasn't an extension, it was the creation of a different set of local government arrangements which wiped out two administrative counties. Although Greater London disappeared for a while. It is now back as a "region" with a peculiar governance structure. It was never a county as such. London has never had the same local government arrangements as the rest of England. It isn't and wasn't uniform in the rest of England. Middlesex was certainly a normal county. AIUI, it excluded the "City of London". The LCC was certainly called a county, although I am aware it was granted extra powers. Other counties weren't all equal as the result of various odd bits of private legislation but possibly not as different as the County of London. The borders of the Cities and boroughs within the County were also consolidated into their present monstrous size in 1965. Maybe it would have been better to give back some land to surrounding counties, decentralise into them and just have an overall authority to deal with necessary common functions (e.g. transport) but prevent detrimental centralisation either in the centre or in the surrounding counties ? Prior to that were the human scaled boroughs such as Paddington and St Marylebone. In those days democracy was closer to the electorate. Not everywhere. Wandsworth was divided, part going to Lambeth, with Battersea added. the resulting entity was much the same size as the old Metropolitan Borough. Thank you, that was informative. The inner boroughs had lost a lot of population due to the war and post-war reconstruction. In 1918 modern day Tower Hamlets had seven MPs. Now it has one and a half. The old boroughs meant something. Perhaps as London's population increases we will see a return to more localized boroughs. Bushey Station is not in Bushey, which is not in Watford, but Oxhey, which is. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:46:19 -0800, Aurora wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:35 -0600, wrote: In article , (Aurora) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:03 -0000, "NY" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 11/01/2014 22:16, Robert wrote: Heathrow wasn't in London when first built! My father worked there in the early 50s and we lived in Bedfont. Going to London was a major expedition involving buses to either Feltham or Hounslow West stations and then the train. Where was the boundary between London and other places defined to be in those days? Was it a 1974 change when the county of Greater London was created? When the neighbouring counties had boundaries that met close to central London, where was the boundary of "London" deemed to be, and did it gradually change as greenfield sites got filled in? Greater London was formed in 1965. Prior to that there was, the almost sane, smaller, London County Council. Prior to 1889 Middlesex was the county at the heart of England, although only its South Eastern part was urbanized. IIRC until 1889 the City of London was outwith any County. The area of the County of London was defined long before 1889. The Metropolitan Board of Works covered the same area and was formed in 1854 (IIRC). It didn't form the same area. Like the Metropolitan Police, it intruded into counties surrounding London but did not replace the local governments in those areas but took over some of their functions. The MBW area was greatly influenced by the course of an assortment of rivers as it was responsible for stuff that doesn't run uphill without help. No. The County of London created in 1889 had the boundaries of the MBW at the time of the change, despite london already being considerably larger by then. The Metropolitan Police District (1829) and London Transport Area (1933) were much earlier definitions of Greater London too. They (or rather the associated legislation) defined respectively the "metropolitan police district" and the "London Passenger Transport Area" neither of which ever matched any local authority boundaries until the MPD was matched to Greater London in recent years. Yes, but they recognised the reality that London had long spread beyond the LCC/MBW area. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...olice_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ransport_Board. Which effectively support what I've just said. Understood, thank you for sharing. London's government has sadly been subject to endless meddling by central government, partly because it is also located in London. Once again,e emphatically agree. AFIK these 1889 and 1965 are the only times the County of London was extended. 1965 wasn't an extension, it was the creation of a different set of local government arrangements which wiped out two administrative counties. That's a terminological quibble only. The area of London government was extended. Although Greater London disappeared for a while. It is now back as a "region" with a peculiar governance structure. It was never a county as such. London has never had the same local government arrangements as the rest of England. It isn't and wasn't uniform in the rest of England. As I said. Middlesex was certainly a normal county. Not exactly. It had no police force and its tramways were taken over by the LPTB in 1933. AIUI, it excluded the "City of London". The LCC was certainly called a county, although I am aware it was granted extra powers. Other counties weren't all equal as the result of various odd bits of private legislation but possibly not as different as the County of London. It was the County of London and didn't include the City but its powers and constitution were quite different from every other county in England. For example, it had extensive housing powers; no other county had an. Every other large urban area was one or more county boroughs anyway. London had one alderman for every six councillors when the rest of England and Wales had one for every three. The rules for Deputy Mayors are different. The borders of the Cities and boroughs within the County were also consolidated into their present monstrous size in 1965. Maybe it would have been better to give back some land to surrounding counties, decentralise into them and just have an overall authority to deal with necessary common functions (e.g. transport) but prevent detrimental centralisation either in the centre or in the surrounding counties ? Prior to that were the human scaled boroughs such as Paddington and St Marylebone. In those days democracy was closer to the electorate. Not everywhere. Wandsworth was divided, part going to Lambeth, with Battersea added. the resulting entity was much the same size as the old Metropolitan Borough. Thank you, that was informative. The inner boroughs had lost a lot of population due to the war and post-war reconstruction. In 1918 modern day Tower Hamlets had seven MPs. Now it has one and a half. The old boroughs meant something. Perhaps as London's population increases we will see a return to more localized boroughs. No they didn't. Their boundaries were as artificial as the present day ones. They were based on the old vestries that had become irrelevant to modern London by 1854. They have to be in a continuous urban area to a large extent anyway. The County of London had been around for ten years before the Metropolitan Boroughs were created in 1899. Obviously there are some strong natural boundaries, especially the River Thames, but not many. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
|
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
|
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:25:03 -0600,
wrote: In article , (Charles Ellson) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:46:19 -0800, Aurora wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:08:35 -0600, wrote: In article , (Aurora) wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:03 -0000, "NY" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... On 11/01/2014 22:16, Robert wrote: Heathrow wasn't in London when first built! My father worked there in the early 50s and we lived in Bedfont. Going to London was a major expedition involving buses to either Feltham or Hounslow West stations and then the train. Where was the boundary between London and other places defined to be in those days? Was it a 1974 change when the county of Greater London was created? When the neighbouring counties had boundaries that met close to central London, where was the boundary of "London" deemed to be, and did it gradually change as greenfield sites got filled in? Greater London was formed in 1965. Prior to that there was, the almost sane, smaller, London County Council. Prior to 1889 Middlesex was the county at the heart of England, although only its South Eastern part was urbanized. IIRC until 1889 the City of London was outwith any County. The area of the County of London was defined long before 1889. The Metropolitan Board of Works covered the same area and was formed in 1854 (IIRC). It didn't form the same area. Like the Metropolitan Police, it intruded into counties surrounding London but did not replace the local governments in those areas but took over some of their functions. The MBW area was greatly influenced by the course of an assortment of rivers as it was responsible for stuff that doesn't run uphill without help. No. The County of London created in 1889 had the boundaries of the MBW at the time of the change, despite london already being considerably larger by then. The Metropolitan Police District (1829) and London Transport Area (1933) were much earlier definitions of Greater London too. They (or rather the associated legislation) defined respectively the "metropolitan police district" and the "London Passenger Transport Area" neither of which ever matched any local authority boundaries until the MPD was matched to Greater London in recent years. Yes, but they recognised the reality that London had long spread beyond the LCC/MBW area. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...olice_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...ransport_Board. Which effectively support what I've just said. Understood, thank you for sharing. London's government has sadly been subject to endless meddling by central government, partly because it is also located in London. Once again,e emphatically agree. AFIK these 1889 and 1965 are the only times the County of London was extended. 1965 wasn't an extension, it was the creation of a different set of local government arrangements which wiped out two administrative counties. That's a terminological quibble only. The area of London government was extended. Thank you. Although Greater London disappeared for a while. It is now back as a "region" with a peculiar governance structure. It was never a county as such. London has never had the same local government arrangements as the rest of England. It isn't and wasn't uniform in the rest of England. As I said. Middlesex was certainly a normal county. Not exactly. It had no police force and its tramways were taken over by the LPTB in 1933. Thank you for that. One assumes it was policed by the Met. AIUI, it excluded the "City of London". The LCC was certainly called a county, although I am aware it was granted extra powers. Other counties weren't all equal as the result of various odd bits of private legislation but possibly not as different as the County of London. It was the County of London and didn't include the City but its powers and constitution were quite different from every other county in England. For example, it had extensive housing powers; no other county had an. Every other large urban area was one or more county boroughs anyway. London had one alderman for every six councillors when the rest of England and Wales had one for every three. The rules for Deputy Mayors are different. Thank you. This is instructive. The borders of the Cities and boroughs within the County were also consolidated into their present monstrous size in 1965. Maybe it would have been better to give back some land to surrounding counties, decentralise into them and just have an overall authority to deal with necessary common functions (e.g. transport) but prevent detrimental centralisation either in the centre or in the surrounding counties ? Prior to that were the human scaled boroughs such as Paddington and St Marylebone. In those days democracy was closer to the electorate. Not everywhere. Wandsworth was divided, part going to Lambeth, with Battersea added. the resulting entity was much the same size as the old Metropolitan Borough. Thank you, that was informative. The inner boroughs had lost a lot of population due to the war and post-war reconstruction. In 1918 modern day Tower Hamlets had seven MPs. Now it has one and a half. The old boroughs meant something. Perhaps as London's population increases we will see a return to more localized boroughs. No they didn't. Their boundaries were as artificial as the present day ones. They were based on the old vestries that had become irrelevant to modern London by 1854. They have to be in a continuous urban area to a large extent anyway. The County of London had been around for ten years before the Metropolitan Boroughs were created in 1899. Obviously there are some strong natural boundaries, especially the River Thames, but not many. Granting the Metropolitan Borough of Westminster City status was long overdue and sensible. The borough contained the palaces of Buckingham and Westminster. It is the home to Whitehall. The issue is that it also encompasses the old boroughs of Paddington and St Mary-le-Bone. To the shopkeeper on Marylebone High St, or the Resident in Saint Johns Wood, council offices in the old borough are much more accessible. Government is closer. However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
"Aurora" wrote
However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - they were too small, but local opinion was taken into account. The original proposal was for Chislehurst & Sidcup UD to go into Bexley Borough - sensible for Sidcup, but unwelcome in Chislehurst, and after pressure it was agreed to split the UD along the A20 - Chislehurst going into Bromley Borough. Orpington UD also went into Bromley Borough. Knockholt didn't like this - it wanted to stay in Kent, and following pressure, Knockkholt got out of Greater London and Bromley Borough, and went into Sevenoaks District in Kent in 1974 - and got its parish council back, which it lost when Orpington became an Urban District. Peter |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
|
Local Government Structures
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county they were too small, but local opinion was taken into account. The original proposal was for Chislehurst & Sidcup UD to go into Bexley Borough - sensible for Sidcup, but unwelcome in Chislehurst, and after pressure it was agreed to split the UD along the A20 - Chislehurst going into Bromley Borough. Orpington UD also went into Bromley Borough. Knockholt didn't like this - it wanted to stay in Kent, and following pressure, Knockkholt got out of Greater London and Bromley Borough, and went into Sevenoaks District in Kent in 1974 - and got its parish council back, which it lost when Orpington became an Urban District. Happy to read that. Power to the People, :-) Sadly the People of Humberside had to waid longer to be heard. Peter -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Local Government Structures
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:09:15 -0600,
wrote: Again, good to see local democracy in action. -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Which UK railway station names do you feel are anomalous?
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote: Corrected version. "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the determination of the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county they were too small, but local opinion was taken into account. The original proposal was for Chislehurst & Sidcup UD to go into Bexley Borough - sensible for Sidcup, but unwelcome in Chislehurst, and after pressure it was agreed to split the UD along the A20 - Chislehurst going into Bromley Borough. Orpington UD also went into Bromley Borough. Knockholt didn't like this - it wanted to stay in Kent, and following pressure, Knockkholt got out of Greater London and Bromley Borough, and went into Sevenoaks District in Kent in 1974 - and got its parish council back, which it lost when Orpington became an Urban District. Happy to read that. Power to the People, :-) Sadly the People of Humberside had to waid longer to be heard. Peter -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Local Government Structures
"Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! tim |
Local Government Structures
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! Shushshsh, please. -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno |
Local Government Structures
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? |
Local Government Structures
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? Surely much less than those propagated by the Yes campaign? |
Local Government Structures
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:33 -0600, Recliner
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? Surely much less than those propagated by the Yes campaign? Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. |
Local Government Structures
On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:33 -0600, Recliner wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? Surely much less than those propagated by the Yes campaign? Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Local Government Structures
On 12/01/2014 20:20, Aurora wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! Shushshsh, please. -- http://www.991fmtalk.com/ The DMZ in Reno Not to mention the ludicrous pseudo-Gaelicism on display. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Local Government Structures
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. That one is a serious concern. The NHS in Scotland is a devolved matter and is run very differently from the NHS south of the border. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. An interesting one, since the EU apparently has no provision for rescinding EU citizenship, which UK nationals in Scotland currently enjoy. AIUI the EU hasn't actually made a statement on the matter and that's one of the complicating factors. Sam -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 03:11:53 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. My understanding of the EU position, which is a very difficult read as this would be the first split of an existing EU member state so there is no precedent, is that the existing state (E,W&NI) would remain in the EU, but that the breakaway state (Scotland) would have to apply for EU membership. I believe part of reasoning behind this is that the rest of the Schengen / Euro EU see this as a way of imposing Schengen / Euro on the UK (E,W&NI), because Scotland will be required as a new entrant to commit to both Schengen and the Euro. This in turn means that England will have to close the border with Scotland and trade with Scotland will become a Euro / Sterling exchange if the UK (E,W&NI) wishes to remain outside of Schengen and retain Sterling. In other words, Salmond is being played as a pawn by the Schengen / Euro block of the EC in an attempt to make Westminster play on their terms. But this is only my belief. I'm sure there are those who are more politically aware than I who will be amongst the first to state that such machinations would never be dreamt of by the Euro / Schengen block in the EU. -- Denis McMahon, |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:33 -0600, Recliner wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? Surely much less than those propagated by the Yes campaign? Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion. |
Local Government Structures
Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts. I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making? -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. Who's language? And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily be EU. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion. Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero backing for his arguemnt. All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Local Government Structures
On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:
-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all signed up for the Federal Republic's not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point, and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current Germany is actually "West Germany", but with more territory than it used to have. An equivalent might be if all 50 US states decided to transfer their allegiance to Canada, leaving nothing behind for the US national government to govern. The biggest lie in the Scottish campaign seems to be the belief that many people in England are all that bothered... (although maybe the monks at Buckfast are worried about any future import tariffs Scotland might impose?). -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts. "However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite dramas". Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night. I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making? -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. Just like Yorkshire v. England then ? It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond. He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove any of the islands. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. Who's language? Nobody is language. And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily be EU. You presume incorrectly. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion. Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero backing for his arguemnt. All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will. On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ? |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all signed up for the Federal Republic's not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point, and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current Germany is actually "West Germany", ITYM the German Federal Republic, created in 1949 and to which the Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :- https://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/ar...ism/index.html as does the UK :- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxtreaties/in-force/germany.pdf [UK/FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY DOUBLE TAXATION CONVENTION SIGNED 30 MARCH 2010] but with more territory than it used to have. Thus it physically reformed along with all the EU-related consequences of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before re-union ? An equivalent might be if all 50 US states decided to transfer their allegiance to Canada, leaving nothing behind for the US national government to govern. About as likely as Barking seceding from the Union and joining Serbia? The biggest lie in the Scottish campaign seems to be the belief that many people in England are all that bothered... Indeed, there is little of the "everybody's talking about it" as implied by Bitter Together and the Unionist tabloids (at least in their kilted editions). (although maybe the monks at Buckfast are worried about any future import tariffs Scotland might impose?). They must be cacking themselves at the thought of having to establish a new user base. Mossside ? Toxteth ? |
Local Government Structures
On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts. "However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite dramas". Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night. Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side mentioned satellite. I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making? -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. Just like Yorkshire v. England then ? Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental. It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond. He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove any of the islands. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. Who's language? Nobody is language. So the language of who exactly then? And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily be EU. You presume incorrectly. That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion. Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero backing for his arguemnt. All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will. On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ? No just a legal loophole neither side is admitting to. Presumably in the hope that the other lot haven't noticed. You don't need secret plots when both sides are equally incompetent. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Local Government Structures
On 13/01/2014 18:49, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all signed up for the Federal Republic's not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point, and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current Germany is actually "West Germany", ITYM the German Federal Republic, Which is what I wrote. In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the country which still exists. East Germany was a colloquial term for the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic). This no longer exists, since its constituent elements all joined the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IIRC the legal details for various parts of the urban area of Berlin were technically slightly more complex, but that doesn't matter). Presumably someone has thought about what to do if the governor of Kaliningrad oblast were ever to come knocking on the Reichstag door clutching a signed print-out of the basic law. created in 1949 and to which the Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :- Of course they refer to it in the present tense. Just as the Sejm refers to the Rzeczpospolita Polska in the present tense. but with more territory than it used to have. Thus it physically reformed No, it kept going on as before, but bigger. That is the point. I've actually come across Germans who object to the English phrase "German reunification", as from a German legal and constitutional perspective that does not accurately reflect what happened. along with all the EU-related consequences of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before re-union ? There never were any GDR(/DDR/East Germany/Soviet zone/whatever) MEPs. See above. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Local Government Structures
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? I wouldn't know what the no campaign is saying they are conspicuous by the absence down south whereas everything the Salmon says seems to get reported by the (English) nationals tim |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. Last time anyone asked it was 8% who wished to remain in the fUK if Scotland left. |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Very little of it is within their12 mile limit which is all they would be entitled to if, as you are suggesting, they became a foriegn enclave in another countries waters. |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:04:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts. "However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite dramas". Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night. Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side mentioned satellite. It's a bit hard for it not to be implicit in current television broadcasting arrangements. I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making? -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. Just like Yorkshire v. England then ? Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental. Has the Shetland Islands electorate (or even any of the Yorkshire electorates) made a competent expression to support you ? It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond. He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove any of the islands. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. Who's language? Nobody is language. So the language of who exactly then? Scotland. Other languages are also recognised in Scotland. And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily be EU. You presume incorrectly. That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round. No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current arrangements. And that is not anything to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU. There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion. Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero backing for his arguemnt. All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will. On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ? No just a legal loophole neither side is admitting to. A loophole which (if it actually existed) would possibly be invalidated by not using it before the event. You're not allowed to let things develop beyond the stage at which action could be taken and then go to court about it later. Presumably in the hope that the other lot haven't noticed. You don't need secret plots when both sides are equally incompetent. |
Local Government Structures
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:04:56 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: Such as ...... ? According to the No campaign :- -Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders"). Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this? Ruth Davidson :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650 She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts. "However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite dramas". Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night. Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side mentioned satellite. It's a bit hard for it not to be implicit in current television broadcasting arrangements. I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see any resemblance to reality. Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is? -It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British NHS). Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again. The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems, each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS" (Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency treatment has ceased. -It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU clampdown started). You are conflating two separate issues. Tell the "No" campaign. Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making? -The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether Scotland stays in the UK or not) But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims.. Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years ago :- http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011 -All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that without Scotland's agreement). Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their waters. Shetland is part of Scotland. Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland. Just like Yorkshire v. England then ? Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental. Has the Shetland Islands electorate (or even any of the Yorkshire electorates) made a competent expression to support you ? It became part of the UK as part of Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the 1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ? This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond. He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove any of the islands. -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) etc. etc. It can't be chucked out because it is not in. The people are already in as you will find with passports marked "European Union" and which use our own language. Who's language? Nobody is language. So the language of who exactly then? Scotland. Other languages are also recognised in Scotland. And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily be EU. You presume incorrectly. That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round. No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current arrangements. So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes, vote, etc? |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote: So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes, vote, etc? Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that existing dual citizens do. |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote: On 13/01/2014 18:49, Charles Ellson wrote: On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote: -Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements) Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all signed up for the Federal Republic's not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point, and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current Germany is actually "West Germany", ITYM the German Federal Republic, Which is what I wrote. In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the country which still exists. No it isn't. One was the country formed in 1949 which used that name and the other was the country formed in 1990 which incorporated the former and took over the name; mere use of the same "label" does not count. The 1949 state did not include Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North-Rhine-Weststphalia, Rhineland-Paltinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia in Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (1949); they joined later "in free self-determination" consequent to the Unification Treaty (which requires at least two parties) and a federal statute. East Germany was a colloquial term for the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic). This no longer exists, since its constituent elements all joined the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IIRC the legal details for various parts of the urban area of Berlin were technically slightly more complex, but that doesn't matter). Presumably someone has thought about what to do if the governor of Kaliningrad oblast were ever to come knocking on the Reichstag door clutching a signed print-out of the basic law. created in 1949 and to which the Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :- Of course they refer to it in the present tense. Just as the Sejm refers to the Rzeczpospolita Polska in the present tense. but with more territory than it used to have. Thus it physically reformed No, it kept going on as before, but bigger. That is the point. I've actually come across Germans who object to the English phrase "German reunification", as from a German legal and constitutional perspective that does not accurately reflect what happened. along with all the EU-related consequences of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before re-union ? There never were any GDR(/DDR/East Germany/Soviet zone/whatever) MEPs. Quite. The territory was not part of the EU until re-united with the part of Germany which was part of the EU and was accepted into the EU using ad hoc arrangements to replace the membership of Germany (1949) with Germany (1990). See above. |
Local Government Structures
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:50:09 +0100, "tim......"
wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......" wrote: "Aurora" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Aurora" wrote However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or join the nearby City. As it is we will never know. You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to disagree! The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old boroughs was not an option - IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their chosen parish, municipality, and county But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their "vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they are going to be if they vote yes! What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No" campaign ? I wouldn't know what the no campaign is saying they are conspicuous by the absence down south If you're really desperate :- http://bettertogether.net/ but (like the Judean People's Front) they have splitters :- http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/cam...ed-with-labour There are even supporters of Unionist parties who claim to be in favour of independence although watch out for spoof sites such as :- https://www.facebook.com/Conservatives4Independence ("WE'RE a bunch of well to do tories who believe that we can make alot more dosh in a Free Scotland.") whereas everything the Salmon says seems to get reported by the (English) nationals tim |
Local Government Structures
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:44:45 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current arrangements. What on earth is a "ROTUK" passport, who currently qualifies for them, and by what logic would such qualification extend to an independent Scotland? -- Denis McMahon, |
Local Government Structures
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:31:38 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote: If you're really desperate :- http://bettertogether.net/ but (like the Judean People's Front) they have splitters :- http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/cam...ed-with-labour There are even supporters of Unionist parties who claim to be in favour of independence although watch out for spoof sites such as :- https://www.facebook.com/Conservatives4Independence ("WE'RE a bunch of well to do tories who believe that we can make alot more dosh in a Free Scotland.") https://twitter.com/orangemen4indy |
Local Government Structures
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner wrote: So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes, vote, etc? Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that existing dual citizens do. Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to "British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g. national service. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk