danny Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I agree with what you are saying except the moving of govenment to a new location. I think it would just be doing something for the sake of it rather than an actual need. Im from cumbria so having the govenment in edinburgh or newcastle would make it closer to me. But i dont think the move in location would change anything. I think it would make us a bit of a laughing stock. I have no great love for the south of england. But i have even less love for changing things just for the sake of it. But i agree that devolution should be reversed. And im glad we never got the north west assy that was talked about. People seem to like them for some reason. But really they are just a waste of money. Money that would be much better spent actually improving things.
McPhee Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) I guess i'd only like to see a relocation of government because London is traditionally seen as the seat of the English parliament, but at the same time it'd be a silly waste of money to move it. Maybe distributing elements of it across the country would make people feel less like everything revloves around events 'down south'? A 'Bank of Britain' in Edinburgh, for example. Edited June 22, 2009 by McPhee
Shino Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Brazil built a whole capital to avoid those kind of problems, I don't see the big problem in moving a parliament.
navarre Posted June 23, 2009 Author Posted June 23, 2009 Why do you think the Scots want independance? Because they have an irrational dislike of England, and are too proud? There'll be more money to go around (currently the GDP PP in Scotland is FAR lower than in England), they'll have greater political control and their own place on the World stage. Their own place on the world stage? A tiny nation of five million residents would be behind Poland on the world stage of influence. Scotland would have to raise its own armed forces (good luck at trying to rival the UKs armed forces though). The GDP is only lower than Englands because of its size and population, and GDP is only one way of measuring wealth. I guess i'd only like to see a relocation of government because London is traditionally seen as the seat of the English parliament, but at the same time it'd be a silly waste of money to move it. Maybe distributing elements of it across the country would make people feel less like everything revloves around events 'down south'? A 'Bank of Britain' in Edinburgh, for example. It makes sense to have the government located in London, the UKs biggest city, Europe's largest financial center and the UKs only true global city. But your idea of distribution of government isn't too bad- South Africa has three different capitals. Still, as previously said, London is just a location. Lots of people in this city aren't even English.
McPhee Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Their own place on the world stage? A tiny nation of five million residents would be behind Poland on the world stage of influence. Scotland would have to raise its own armed forces (good luck at trying to rival the UKs armed forces though). The GDP is only lower than Englands because of its size and population, and GDP is only one way of measuring wealth. GDP PP is GDP/Population. Not much difference between the figures for England and Scotland though really, the Scots are about £2k below. And i think you'll find that the majority of Scots don't have an irrational dislike of England or the English. Certainly don't know anyone first-hand that hates English people (apart from a few Muslims, but that's a story for a different thread). You're thinking of North Wales there :p
Recommended Posts