"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 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

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

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.

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.

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