Ah, that's my problem you see - I feel no loyalty to the Crown whatsoever.

And that's just the beauty of the relatively hands-off pragmatic British form
of government. Nobody is suggesting you HAVE to pledge loyalty to the Crown,
but all those that make the system tick do, and far better that they pledge
loyalty to an apolitical figurehead than an elected politician who, by his very
nature, is partisan.

I
feel that democracy and self-determination are the closest we can have to
exrpessions of public interest, so if a majority of Scots want their own
Parliament - or even independence - I believe they should have it.

What if a majority of Yorkshiremen wanted a parliament? What about a majority
of Muslims? Once you start dividing in that way, where does it end?

What I don't agree with is multiple layers of overlapping government,

I agree absolutely.

or the
abolition of local authorities on the whim of the government of the day
(e.g. the GLC).

I believe in as little government as possible. The G.L.C. was abolished largely
thanks to Ken, the great survivor!

I'd like to see a legally entrenced federal system of some
sort, which clearly delineates powers.

Our unwritten constiution has served us well for many years. One man's idea of
a written (entrenched) constitution is another man's idea of oppression.

With the cabal in Strasbourg, there is neither a theoretical nor practical
prospect of ever removing them, since the majority come from other
countries,
of whose electorate none of us in the U.K. can ever be part.

I agree that the EU suffers from a severe democratic deficit; but I think we
do need elected international bodies to allow checks on the power of
multinationals or bodies like the WTO.


Yes, but that is not the same thing as a supra-national government which is
what the E.U. purports to be. In fact it is the genesis of a nation -
ultimately it will fail.

I appreciate that you may not think of yourself as a European; but I suggest
that there is a significant minority of Scots who wouldn't think of
themselves as British either.

I'd wager that more Scots regard themselves as British than European!

Marc.

That's just the point, Jonn: the U.K. is a UNITED Kingdom, whereas Europe
is
neither a country nor united in any meaningful way.

Marc.

Tell that to the SNP, or the miners c1984. I agree that Europe doesn't have
anything approaching a "national" identity; but I think you overestimate the
strength of the British identity. This country is intensely divided -
English, Scots, north, south, rich, poor - yet it seems to hang together
well enough.




That's just the point: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's why I am a
conservative (small "c" - I do not actually belong to any political party).

Marc.

It seems to me to be only some English people who describe themselves as
British,

so what?

excluding the offspring of some more recent Commonwealth
immigrants.

of which I am one, and proud of it. I dare anyone to deny me my right and
privilege to describe myself as British and I condemn anyone who sneers at this
concept.

Marc.

tobias b koehler wrote in article
...

It would be nice to have a paneuropean brand for international
high speed trains (ideally with some minimum standards for
punctuality, seating, catering ... or even a compatible fare
system), but currently it seems that each line gets its own
name and fare system, which makes it difficult to combine them
on longer journeys and leads to open questions such as "If I
miss my Thalys because my ICE is late, can I take the next one
with the same ticket or do I have to go anywhere to change it
first?"

Yes, at this moment the disadvantages of a free market (lack of integration
with regards to tariffs, information,e tc) are combined with the
disadvantages of monopolists (DB, NMBS etc are still mostly monopolist
companies)... :-/

Regards,
David

John Rowland wrote:

Regular wars are a small price to pay for the continued
existence of multiple voices.

A heavy price to pay, I think. Wars don't come cheap in human terms,
however well justified.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

I believe in as little government as possible.

I never thought I'd hear a lawyer say that!

The G.L.C. was abolished largely
thanks to Ken, the great survivor!

No, the GLC was abolished entirely thanks to Margaret Thatcher. Ken was the
democratic choice of London at that time (and this time, despite having no
political party behind him). You should not blame the people's democratic
favourite for Thatcher removing people's democratic voice.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

The G.L.C. was abolished largely
thanks to Ken, the great survivor!

No, the GLC was abolished entirely thanks to Margaret Thatcher. Ken was the
democratic choice of London at that time (and this time, despite having no
political party behind him). You should not blame the people's democratic
favourite for Thatcher removing people's democratic voice.

With the greatest of respect, that is utter rubbish!

The leader whom the people of London voted for was a chap called Mackintosh
(now Lord Mackintosh of Haringey), who was immediately ousted by Ken, literally
the day after the elections. Ken did not win the 1981 election as G.L.C.
Leader.

Hardly a shining example of democracy.

Margaret Thatcher, on the other hand, at least stood the test of the electorate
in 1979, 1983 and 1987 (or 1988 or whenever).

Sorry to be so brutal in my rebuttal of your erroneous assertion, John.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

The leader whom the people of London voted for was a
chap called Mackintosh (now Lord Mackintosh of Haringey),
who was immediately ousted by Ken, literally the day
after the elections. Ken did not win the 1981 election
as G.L.C. Leader.

I never knew that, thanks. In my defence, I was only 15 at the time. Sorry
for erroneously "telling you off" - actually, my tone would have been
unacceptable even if I'd been factually correct...

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone , "Following the
Conservative sweep in the 1983 general election, the Tories forged ahead
with their long-standing plan to abolish the GLC".

"Long-standing" seems to suggets more than 2 years, i.e. it was already the
plan when Tory Horace Cutler was in control.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Mait001" wrote in message
...

I believe in as little government as possible.

I never thought I'd hear a lawyer say that!

The G.L.C. was abolished largely
thanks to Ken, the great survivor!

No, the GLC was abolished entirely thanks to Margaret Thatcher. Ken was
the
democratic choice of London at that time (and this time, despite having no
political party behind him). You should not blame the people's democratic
favourite for Thatcher removing people's democratic voice.

To borrow a quote, "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it". And she
did.

Followup-To: misc.transport.rail.europe

In misc.transport.rail.europe David Eerdmans wrote:

Is the Karlsruhe system a S-Bahn or a Stadtbahn?

Generally referred to and viewed as "Stadtbahn", though sometimes
referred to as S-Bahn. In fact, it kind of blurs - and straddles -
the distinction between the two. In the DB timetables it is treated as
S-Bahn mostly.

Mind you, all these distinctions are more often than not lost on the
general public, even among the regular users of such systems.

Sven
--
Sven Manias * Karlsruhe * Germany
E-Mail: * WWW: http://www.sven-manias.de/