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

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

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

"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

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

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 ?

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?

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.

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

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