Mait001 wrote:

Not all of these are EU-initiated or even true currently, but I'll limit
my comment to the one that is more or less on-topic for this NG:

- railway infrastructure separate from operations (a Directive
requirement that ensures even if we wanted it, the railways can never
again be united in ownership)

No, that's not true. The operations and infrastructure have to be
separately accounted, but AFAIK there is no requirement actually to
force them to be in separate organisations. It was John Major's
government that decided to carve BR up in the crass way that they did.
Other countries have done it differently, within EU rules.


I do not defend the particularly crass way that Major's government privatised
the railways, but the fact that they needed to be split remains a Directive
requirement.

AIUI the directive only insisted on separate accounting, but the now
abandoned "stage 2" directive was planned to demand they be split.

The fact that other countries may have retained a unified structure means
nothing: France gets away with subsidising Air France to the tune of
billions - but we would neither attempt to break the rules the way they
do, nor ignore the European Court's ruling when censured (in France's
case, the Commission simply changed the rules after the judgement, so that
France was no longer in breach).

I think that's something that needs to be looked at more closely. How
did France get the Commission to change the rules?

Of course they have to be separate organisations - how could Europeans bid
for franchises if there was only one franchise to be let?

The same way as if there were lots of them, except with no second
chances!

I think the real question is why the entire network was split into
franchises before anyone had proper experience managing them.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message

Having got onto this topic perhaps someone can help me out. The Tories
are
against closer integration into Europe claiming loss of sovereignty
etc.
If
that is really the case why are they also against returning
sovereignty
to
Scotland and Wales?


I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the
status
quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which centralizes all
power
in
the Crown, and therefore in the government at Westminster. Therefore
moving
power to Edinburgh is just as offensive as moving power to Brussels -
because it detracts from the Sovreignty of Parliament.


But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their sovereignty to
the
English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom. So what's wrong
with returning it to them?


No. The Scots didn't "chose to give up their sovereignty to the English
Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom".

The Scottish and English Parliaments both voted themselves out of existence
(in 1707) in favour of a new *British* Parliament. The United Kingdom came
into being 104 years earlier (in 1603) when James the 6th of Scotland became
James the 1st of Great Britain (note, *not* James the 1st of England). The
English educational system has never been on the ball regarding what really
happened!

The English view of course is that the English Parliament absorbed Scotland,
not true............

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their sovereignty to
the
English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom. So what's wrong
with returning it to them?



Because we will all be the weaker for it. The weaker you make the United
Kingdom, the more divisions that are created, the more ripe we are for
domination by others, such as the E.U. or other hostile bodies.

Personally, I find the idea of an English parliament just as abhorrent as
a
Scottish or Welsh one. The small price we pay for having a single
Parliament is
a theoretical loss of sovereignty to the Scots or Welsh, but the benefits
we
all enjoy from being united are, for example, shown by the ability to
withstand
foreign invasion, and freedom of movement within the U.K. Cross-subsidy is
another benefit.

Marc.


In a roundabout way you are right. We are much better united than divided.

The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly have
been a complete disaster (and waste of money). Many people in Scotland and
Wales now long for the 'good old days' of rule from Westminster because the
Edinburgh and Cardiff gravy trains are complete jokes and only people living
within a few miles of either city are still in favour of the new
arrangements. People in Glasgow, for instance, have seen Edinburgh puff
itself up and feather its own nest, at the expense of the rest of Scotland.
The United Kingdom is much better united than divided. Devolution has been a
complete disaster (and I speak as a Scotsman living in England).

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Mait001" wrote in message
...

I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the
status
quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which centralizes all
power
in
the Crown, and therefore in the government at Westminster. Therefore
moving
power to Edinburgh is just as offensive as moving power to Brussels -
because it detracts from the Sovreignty of Parliament.

Jonn



Nicely put, Jonn, although I personally find power being sent to
Brussels
as
FAR more offensive than power being sent to Edinburgh or Cardiff.
Personally, I
see no problem with the English being governed largely by Scottish M.P.s
in the
Cabinet (as is the position now) since they are nominally loyal to the
Crown.

Ah, that's my problem you see - I feel no loyalty to the Crown whatsoever.
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 I don't agree with is multiple layers of overlapping government, or
the
abolition of local authorities on the whim of the government of the day
(e.g. the GLC). I'd like to see a legally entrenced federal system of some
sort, which clearly delineates powers.

I absolutely agree with that.

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.

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.

Jonn

There are also a significant number of Scots who DON't want to be ruled from
small town Edinburgh (i.e. people in the west/north/south of Scotland) who
regard the 'Scottish Parliament' as being a joke which only looks after the
Edinburgh area). They want to be part of the UK, governed from London -
because they can see the bigger picture. Only people living within the (very
small) Edinburgh area are still in favour of the Mickey Mouse (and
ridicuously expensive) Edinburgh 'Scottish' Parliament. It is the same in
Wales (and presumably Northern Ireland).

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
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.

Exactly:
1. Scottish
2. British
3. European

A H wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message

Having got onto this topic perhaps someone can help me out. The
Tories are against closer integration into Europe claiming loss of
sovereignty etc. If that is really the case why are they also
against returning sovereignty to Scotland and Wales?


I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the
status quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which
centralizes all power in the Crown, and therefore in the government
at Westminster. Therefore moving power to Edinburgh is just as
offensive as moving power to Brussels - because it detracts from
the Sovreignty of Parliament.


But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their sovereignty
to the English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom. So
what's wrong with returning it to them?


No. The Scots didn't "chose to give up their sovereignty to the
English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom".

The Scottish and English Parliaments both voted themselves out of
existence (in 1707) in favour of a new *British* Parliament. The
United Kingdom came into being 104 years earlier (in 1603) when James
the 6th of Scotland became James the 1st of Great Britain (note,
*not* James the 1st of England). The English educational system has
never been on the ball regarding what really happened!

The English view of course is that the English Parliament absorbed
Scotland, not true............

Which does not detract from my argument.

A H wrote:
"Mait001" wrote in message
...

But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their
sovereignty to the English Parliament and become part of the United
Kingdom. So what's wrong with returning it to them?



Because we will all be the weaker for it. The weaker you make the
United Kingdom, the more divisions that are created, the more ripe
we are for domination by others, such as the E.U. or other hostile
bodies.

Personally, I find the idea of an English parliament just as
abhorrent as a Scottish or Welsh one. The small price we pay for
having a single Parliament is a theoretical loss of sovereignty to
the Scots or Welsh, but the benefits we all enjoy from being united
are, for example, shown by the ability to withstand foreign
invasion, and freedom of movement within the U.K. Cross-subsidy is
another benefit.

Marc.


In a roundabout way you are right. We are much better united than
divided.

The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly
have been a complete disaster (and waste of money). Many people in
Scotland and Wales now long for the 'good old days' of rule from
Westminster because the Edinburgh and Cardiff gravy trains are
complete jokes and only people living within a few miles of either
city are still in favour of the new arrangements. People in Glasgow,
for instance, have seen Edinburgh puff itself up and feather its own
nest, at the expense of the rest of Scotland. The United Kingdom is
much better united than divided. Devolution has been a complete
disaster (and I speak as a Scotsman living in England).

So, to return to my original question, if the UK is stronger through being a
single entity why are those people who object to devolution also objecting
to closer integration with the rest of Europe and making an even bigger,
stronger union?

So, to return to my original question, if the UK is stronger through being a
single entity why are those people who object to devolution also objecting
to closer integration with the rest of Europe and making an even bigger,
stronger union?

Because, as a UNITED Kingdom, we share certain values and characteristics that,
patently, the U.K. does not share with every other country (or even most) of
the E.U.

Here's a few (but not an exhaustive list):

Crown, i.e. an apolitical head of state
Independence of judiciary and officers of state from government
Language
Common law
Culture, including literature
Historical experience
Currency & economy
Philosophical outlook on World affairs
Belief in fair play
Freedom from all but wholly necessary governmental interference (which is
philosophically opposite the the civil law "rights"-orientated philosophy of
the Napoleonic system in vogue in most European countries)

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
So, to return to my original question, if the UK is stronger through
being a
single entity why are those people who object to devolution also
objecting
to closer integration with the rest of Europe and making an even bigger,
stronger union?

Because, as a UNITED Kingdom, we share certain values and characteristics
that,
patently, the U.K. does not share with every other country (or even most)
of
the E.U.

Here's a few (but not an exhaustive list):

Crown, i.e. an apolitical head of state
Independence of judiciary and officers of state from government
Language
Common law
Culture, including literature
Historical experience
Currency & economy
Philosophical outlook on World affairs
Belief in fair play
Freedom from all but wholly necessary governmental interference (which is
philosophically opposite the the civil law "rights"-orientated philosophy
of
the Napoleonic system in vogue in most European countries)


Countries within the UK don't have all share the qualities you indicate but
on the whole we've learnt to live and work together so why can't that apply
to the rest of Europe?

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


So, to return to my original question, if the UK is stronger
through being a single entity why are those people who object to
devolution also objecting to closer integration with the rest of
Europe and making an even bigger, stronger union?

Because, as a UNITED Kingdom, we share certain values and
characteristics that, patently, the U.K. does not share with every
other country (or even most) of the E.U.

Here's a few (but not an exhaustive list):

Crown, i.e. an apolitical head of state

Not particularly significant, especially not in this day and age where
polls suggest a large percentage of people don't care about the
monarchy.

Culture, including literature

Someone living in a remote village in Scotland has less in common with
a Londoner than someone living in another European city. The culture of
differents parts of the UK is as different as the culture of different
parts of Europe.

Historical experience

Well, most parts of the UK have fought wars against most other parts,
but then the same is true of Europe.

Currency & economy

This has never been true. The economy in the North is nothing like the
economy in the South.

Philosophical outlook on World affairs

Really? I think we're as divided in the UK as any other European
country.

Belief in fair play

Oh come on now, that's just ridiculous. For a start, we don't seem to
believe very much in "fair play" (football hooligans make wonderful
ambassadors for "fair play", don't they?). And secondly, you seem to be
trying to say that Europeans don't believe in fair play, which is
really just xenophobia.

Freedom from all but wholly necessary governmental interference

This is just propaganda for your own political beliefs, and an attempt
at insisting that the whole of the UK shares them. Come to think of it,
most of your post is.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
The Hutton Report is a whitewash! Long live the BBC!

To annoy people in a slow lift: run up the stairs faster than the lift
moves and press the lift call button on each floor.