I heard a guest on a BBC radio broadcast say something along the lines of "voters do not vote for the prime minister, they vote for the party they want."
I understand that they don't vote for the prime minister, but I had assumed that they vote for individual candidates, not for the party.
if it's true that they do vote for the party, how do you know which candidate got elected?
I believe the UK system is like the Australian system in that you vote for the local member and whatever party has the most local members elected gets to choose who is the Prime Minister, usually from those elected members of their party. They're the same way as Australia adopted the UK system way back when it became the Commonwealth of Australia.
I read an article about the new British PM. That he's a nationalist and ran on the Brexit proposal and will get England out of the EU. It also said the winners in Scotland and Northern Ireland were also nationalists and those countries are dependent on the EU for their economies.
Basically, the article predicted it's the end of the U.K. The two Irelands will unite and break away from England. Scotland will break away too. It didn't mention anything about Wales.
It didn't mention anything about Wales.
Wales could be said to have been colonised by the English. A large number of pensioners have moved there. There were fire-bombings of holiday homes a generation ago but I've heard nothing new along those lines for decades now.
Wales could be said to have been colonised by the English.
My only reference is what I saw on the Netflix show "The Crown." The episode was the one where Charles was made Prince of Wales (or something - we Americans aren't up on titles). There was a lot of animosity toward the British and Wales wanted to become an independent country. But I believe that was in the 1960s.
I wonder about that term 'nationalist'. The EU is far more protectionist than the UK (the WTO recently ruled against it in favour of the USA).
As relatively poor regions, Scotland and Northern Ireland do get subsidies from the EU, but far less than they get from the UK (ie England).
A united Ireland is an EU target, but a majority of the population still support the union, hence the EU's snit at Boris Johnson offering them a democratic vote on his new backstop.
Scotland voted to stay in the union in its 'once in a generation' referendum. I don't understand the Scottish Nationalist position, other than to give the English a good kicking. Why would they want to become a backwater region of the EU, hitting below their weight and with less than average voting rights, rather than be a vital part of the UK, hitting above their weight and with above average voting rights? Under current EU rules, an independent Scotland would have to go through a five year application process and balance its economy because joining the Euro is now mandatory, and after the experience of Greece I suspect they wouldn't be allowed to get away with smoke and mirrors. With no subsidies from the EU or the UK (England), the recent period of UK austerity would be a walk in the park compared to the cutbacks they'd have to make.
AJ
The SNP position is based on their having taken 48 of 59 (?) seats in Scotland, they see that as a mandate for Scexit. I don't know the percentage of votes they got in Scotland but it looks like more than 53%.
According to https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47523168 the claim that all EU members have to join the Euro is a flat out lie initially propagated by the Daily Telegraph and perpetuated by - for example - the Express and BrexitCentral. A Tory MP - Esther McVey - also propagated it for a while but deleted her Tweet later.
According to https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47523168 the claim that all EU members have to join the Euro is a flat out lie
All new EU members will be required to join the Euro.
AJ
Seems to me there is a good reason why all of the current EU countries haven't joined the Euro countries. That reason is probably a good reason to not join the EU if Euro membership is required.
I think the Euro is a good concept, given that they're building a 'United States of Europe'. Friends of mine operating small businesses love it, and wish the UK had joined the Euro because it makes trading so much simpler. Just imagine a USA where each state had its own currency!
The problem is countries getting their economies sufficiently in sync. Greece pulled a fast one and suffered the consequences.
AJ
Just imagine a USA where each state had its own currency!
It was even more divided than that in the 19th century. Many banks had their own currency, and as different towns had different banks, even while in the same state, well...
It was even more divided than that in the 19th century. Many banks had their own currency,
You are referring to paper currency.
Prior to the 1860s, the official currency of the US was gold and silver coins and only gold and silver coins.
When you start dealing with transactions in thousands of dollars, gold and silver coins become both heavy and bulky, making such transactions difficult.
Thus various banks printed bank notes. A paper certificate that the bank promises to redeem for x amount of gold or silver. A bank note was only as good as the reputation of the issuing bank.
It wasn't until the 1860s that the US Federal government created an official paper currency.
Not sure whether it has changed but my port visit to Edinburgh in the early 70's taught me that not all pound notes are worth the same either. We were allowed to exchange US dollars for British pounds on the ship before liberty. Not sure exactly how much I had but since this was before the widespread use of credit cards it was enough to travel to Glasgow, get a 4 star hotel room and do some sightseeing. In the process of doing this a lot of my Bank of England British Pounds got converted into Bank of Scotland Pounds. Upon reaching my next port in the Mediterranean I was told at the Cambio that Scottish Pounds are worthless outside the British Isles. It taught me to be more careful with my money.
I think the Euro is a good concept, given that they're building a 'United States of Europe'. Friends of mine operating small businesses love it, and wish the UK had joined the Euro because it makes trading so much simpler.
In the short run, the concept works. However, it's the long run Europeans should be concerned with. For the latter, small businesses will be crushed by litigation and bureaucracy in the long run.
I ran a small business until recently, anecdotal evidence from The States indicate their bureaucracy is much worse than here. As for litigation, I have no experience at all because it was never a problem.
I closed it because my market niche ceased to exist and I could not be bothered adapting.
In the short run, the concept works. However, it's the long run Europeans should be concerned with. For the latter, small businesses will be crushed by litigation and bureaucracy in the long run.
I think it is a matter of balancing extremes. Our present administration was elected upon promises of doing away with regulations to the extent that our local congressman, Trump's lap dog (Matt Gaetz), proposed a bill to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency. He argued that it should be left to the states to decide what chemicals to regulate and how to defend the environment. You would think that anyone could look back to the days of DDT, mercury and lead contamination and see that you have to be careful what you discharge into the environment. In our fair city we have a superfund site, where at one time creosote was infused into railroad ties and several sites of old dry cleaning plants where the fluids were dumped in the back of the property.
Still environmentalist here praise the EU for a stance that new chemicals must have proof that they do not danger the environment rather than the US policy of allowing the unregulated use of those chemicals unless there are studies to the contrary.
There has to be a balance between regulations that are so onerous that they put small business out of business and those that are negligent in protection the common good.
That post is touching on politics at several points. My post was limited to the economics of the subject.
Trump's lap dog
With those three words, you've identified your post as politically tinged at a minimum. Since the susposed ban on political comments have been effectively ignored by many, I'll add my .02 in there.
1. I avoid commenting on the politics of another country with one caveat. That being Soviet/China style communism verses the rest of the world. That style of government looks good on paper, but ignores the human condition. The latter assures the failure of it.
2. The fifth column/fourth estate has entirely too much power. The average citizen has been spoon feed their opinion for so long that they've forgotten how to apply critical thinking skills to the things they see and hear. First and foremost in that the ability, or lack thereof, to recognize the fact that there is no such animal as an unbiased opinion in the media. That goes for either end of the political spectrum.
3. Commenting on a different countries politics should be avoided (except for the aforementioned caveat). I'm not English, nor am I from any E.U. nation, therefore I have no opinion on their politics. They are the ones that have to live under their chosen political system, not me.
4. There are no angels in the upper echelons of American politicians. Every one of them have stepped on someone else/proverbially stabbed someone in the back to get there. There are no exceptions. The only real difference is which group of people they had to screw over to get where they are. The idea that Trump is somehow more evil than the rest of them is simply BS.
I'm sick of the political crap showing up everywhere I go. It permeates everything these days.
You are right about my making the post political is correct. It was unintentional but it did let my politics show. For that I apologize.
2. The fifth column/fourth estate has entirely too much power. The average citizen has been spoon feed their opinion for so long that they've forgotten how to apply critical thinking skills to the things they see and hear. First and foremost in that the ability, or lack thereof, to recognize the fact that there is no such animal as an unbiased opinion in the media. That goes for either end of the political spectrum.
As someone who grew up in the Walter Cronkite and Huntley & Brinkley news, we didn't KNOW then that stories we were shown on television were biased. Our parents had listened to Walter Winchell, knew that if a town had more than one newspaper that one was a Democrat paper and the other was Republican, and so when something political was reported, you expected the respective paper to be biased, but when a regular news story was reported, it'd be like Joe Friday. Just the facts, ma'am.
The media has no one to blame but themselves on how little we trust anything they say now, because they still consider themselves to be unbiased - even when they've been proven to be laughably biased. Note I'm also talking about actual NEWS reporting, not just opinion reporting. I blame Bernie Goldberg for my own discovery, when he wrote the book, "Bias", about CBS. I started critically watching actual news stories - simple things like there was a mudslide, and how that would be reported. You wouldn't think you could put bias into something like, hey, there were 4 inches of rain in an hour and so a house fell down when the hill collapsed.
You'd be very wrong. One channel would say, excessive rains caused by global warming caused massive devastation. Another channel would say, heavy rains caused a small slide that destroyed one house. Same event - what the hell? You can't even go with the 'if it bleeds, it leads', thing, because it's the SAME thing. Everyone has seen the pictures from the hurricanes now, where the reporter was standing in a ditch to make it look worse, while people were just walking by through the actual 2" of water on the street.
And they wonder why they're not trusted any longer.
trusted
t rust. (the rust?)
"Rusting and corrosion are two chemical processes, which result in disintegration of materials especially metals."
"The Corrosion of Conservatism review: a Republican pleads ...
https://www.theguardian.com ' us-news ' nov ' the-corrosion-of-conserva...
Nov 3, 2018 - This was my introduction to the white ethnic, working-class politics that Donald Trump would exploit so skillfully across the rust belt."."
Nearly everything leads to politics, with some side trips to corrosion and rust.
The Corrosion of Conservatism review: a Republican pleads ...
https://www.theguardian.com ' us-news ' nov ' the-corrosion-of-conserva...
Nov 3, 2018 - This was my introduction to the white ethnic, working-class politics that Donald Trump would exploit so skillfully across the rust belt."."
The racist suggestions rear their heads once again.
I guess the Blacks, Natives, and Hispanics in the rust belt that voted for him are white now. Interesting.
When in doubt, throw the racist card right? I hope that kool-aid was tasty.
I guess the Blacks, Natives, and Hispanics in the rust belt that voted for him are white now. Interesting.
Well I seem to recall a Black Guy at a Tea Party Rally back in 2010-ish that happened to be caught on film, and that film was then selectively edited so you only ever saw him from behind... That paired down video then went on to get a lot of MSM airtime showing how dangerous "those white ring-wing Republicans" were.
Black Guy at a Tea Party Rally
Yep. In Arizona, an open-carry state. He had his AR-15 on his back.
That actually makes me wonder about carrying my Claymore (since this thread started on Scotland) or my Bat'leth. (Actually, both are legal for me to carry here - I just checked.)
All new EU members will be required to join the Euro.
Quoting from the article I linked above,
Since 1999, all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. However, there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt it.
There is a requirement for all new members to adopt the Euro on joining unless they have a derogation. It's possible (but unlikely) that Scotland could inherit the UK's derogation, or they could negotiate for one as part of their terms and conditions of joining.
AJ
I think you need to start quoting your sources, although I'm heading off-grid in a few hours anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/11/would-an-independent-scotland-join-the-euro
IMO that's a bit more trustworthy than the BBC because there's a deeper level of attribution. And the BBC hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with its Brexit 'facts' recently, so I treat anything it plucks out of thin air as suspicious.
AJ
I'll read that when I'm not dependent on my phone - the screen is too small. Note that it is just under 8 years old and the BBC article is just half a year old.
I think the Czechs and the Slovaks joined separately (?), only the Slovaks are in the Euro Zone.
If lawyers who are experts on EU law only 'think' something is the case, it shows that the only way the issue can be settled is if a country tries to join the EU without wanting to join the Euro.
AJ
If that's an anti-Boris jibe, then I agree with you. His understanding of detail is peripheral at best and he's quite likely to throw people under a bus so he can score a big headline.
AJ
The EU is far more protectionist than the UK (the WTO recently ruled against it in favour of the USA).
Whatever they did must have been so blatant Ray Charles could see it. Ordinarily the WTO will never rule in favor of the US.
" I don't understand the Scottish Nationalist position, other than to give the English a good kicking."
That's pretty much it in an eggshell. Scotland doesn't really want to be part of the EU (I mean, why reject London rule to replace it with Brussels?). The issue here is contrary behavior. In the referendum (Scot/ English)just before the vote, it turned out that independence was very much on the cards, and as such, London panicked. In an effort to claw back votes, it pretty much offered everything bar the kitchen sink just days before the vote. It worked, and Scotland voted to remain. Just. Unsurprisingly, after the vote, most of what was promised never materialised or came with such onerous caveats that the offers were never accepted.
In response to the failure of Westminster to honour the deal, Scotland took a contrary position to that of London in order to provide the basis for a second referendum (Scot/England). Now here lies the problem. Should there be another referendum, the lies of the first are still in everyone's mind and they (Westminster) can't pull the same trick twice (Well, they could try, however the effectiveness of such a move is now in doubt). Which leaves Westminster with a mighty problem. If they allow a 2nd referendum, then the chances of them losing is disproportionately high, so under no circumstances do they wish to risk it.
To get round this, all Scotland has to do is pick something contrary to England and then demand a 2nd referendum as the 'will of the people' is different to that of those South of the border.
Don't forget, that there is no cast iron guarantee that Scotland wouldn't have a sudden change of heart after a second (successful) referendum and 'suddenly' decide that they no longer wish to re-join the EU once they have home rule.
It's worth noting that a large proportion of England's power, and indeed water, comes from Scotland. England's trident defence system is also based in Scotland (because England didn't want the nukes in their backyard). And then there is the not so small issue of the oil and gas reserves in Scotland. And the whisky tax, and the timber reserves, the food production capability-most of which goes South across the border. Even the training areas for the MOD- mainly the RAF.
Scotland is also one of the few places left in the world where Coca-cola is not the most popular soft drink.
It's a common misconception that Scotland would not be able to pay it's way, and takes more in English subsidies than it returns. Well, there is only really one way to find out if that's true or not.
Scotland doesn't really want to be part of the EU
Wasn't it the Scots fishermen who kicked up the biggest stink about the EU bureaucrats assigning traditions Scots / Brits fishing waters to other EU countries some years back?
Personally, I think the best option would be for Scotland to have home rule but stay closely linked with Britain instead of the EU.
Wasn't it the Scots fishermen who kicked up the biggest stink about the EU bureaucrats assigning traditions Scots / Brits fishing waters to other EU countries some years back?
Quite possibly. I do know that foreign registered ships used to dock often at Scottish ports, however, with the introduction of quotas to protect fish stocks, they no longer do so. They now dock at foreign ports that don't ask so many awkward questions.
Scotland has only two fishery protection vessels to police Scottish waters, one of which has been laid up in dock for the last year. So to be caught by the singular vessel is bad luck of the highest order. Yip that's right, the EU quota system killed the Scottish fishing industry whilst allowing fleets of other nations (mostly EU ones) to come in and fish the waters dry anyhow. When Nimrod AWACs were still flying out of RAF Lossimouth, they kept an eye on the fleets that were fishing and alerted coastguard/ Fishery protection vessels, to those ships that shouldn't have been there. Nimrod is no more and the replacement isn't really fit for purpose, not that it flies very often as the budget for fuel has been slashed to death...
Local trawlers report the 'foreign invasion' of quota ignoring trawlers regularly, but there is nothing the UK can do about the situation. They have no ships to effectively police the territory and even if they did, they could not do anything to them anyway. The latest one is Spanish trawlers illegally scallop dredging off the West cost.
I agree with you Ernest, Scotland SHOULD have home rule, then when they fuck up, they have only themselves to blame instead of the current politicians blaming England instead of their own miss-management.
I understand that they don't vote for the prime minister, but I had assumed that they vote for individual candidates, not for the party.
As I understand it, It's kind of both. Yes, there is an actual individual candidate on the ballot when they vote. However, the party has the power to remove and replace an MP from that party without an election.
In the United Kingdom there are about 650 constituencies, areas that elect a Member of Parliament. Each area can pick one winner from a list of candidates, individuals who represent a political party. The winner is the person with most votes, even where that total may be less than the combined total for all the others on the list. Then Parliament is counted as to the party they represent. Scotland and Northern Ireland have some different laws to England and Wales. Wales only had a separate Assembly for the last few years.
A party does NOT have power to remove an elected MP, they can however remove support during their term of office. The selection of candidates to stand for election can be from a local viewpoint or directed from a national committee.
As a side note, the process of voting for Euro MPs is different. People vote for a party, then Euro MPs are allocated by a proportional representation algorithm according to each party's list. I have no idea who my Euro MP is, and that's probably true of most of the country.
AJ
I have no idea who my Euro MP is, and that's probably true of most of the country.
AJ
Over my lifetime, I have voted in four different states in U.S. presidential elections. In all four states, the name on the ballot was the name of the presidential candidate. But, in fact, I was voting for a panel of Electors who had pledged to support that candidate in the Electoral College. I had no idea who those Electors were.
Over my lifetime, I have voted in four different states in U.S. presidential elections. In all four states, the name on the ballot was the name of the presidential candidate. But, in fact, I was voting for a panel of Electors who had pledged to support that candidate in the Electoral College. I had no idea who those Electors were.
When I voted in Illinois in 1984 the electors were listed on the ballot along with the candidate they pledged to support. That is no longer the case, sadly.
When I voted in Illinois in 1984 the electors were listed on the ballot along with the candidate they pledged to support. That is no longer the case, sadly.
Still was the case in Idaho for 2016, you had a checkbox for the President you were voting for, and beneath their name there was a note listing the slate of electors for that candidate.
When I voted in Illinois in 1984 the electors were listed on the ballot along with the candidate they pledged to support. That is no longer the case, sadly
I just double checked. The list of electors was printed on the 2016 ballots here in Oklahoma.
Since elections are run by the states, I would imagine it's up to each state to put those names on there. I was a poll worker during the Bush / Gore election, our ballots then had the electors name on them. (That was busy - our small precinct only had 800 voters total, we had more than 700 turn out to the fire station to vote.)