News1 min ago
English Votes For English Laws
English votes for English laws is passed in parliament.
http://
http://
Answers
There is a slight difference between the two matters, QM (at least as far as the way the public are treated). As far as I know there are no plans to treat English people using airports in Scotland any differently to Scottish people using airports in England. If, say, the Scottish Parliament imposed an additional departure tax on people from Carlisle using...
12:51 Sat 24th Oct 2015
Only someone totally blind to the evidence of his/her own eyes can go on constantly claiming something is "not offensive at all" when the people actually affected by the dubious nomenclature constantly repeat they they do find it offensive! It has nothing whatsoever to do with being 'sad' or 'small-minded'.
Non-English MPs are already second class in that they may not vote on certain matters that solely affect their own country. They are compensated for this by being allowed to vote on the same matters as they affect England!
English MPs are third class in that they may not vote on certain matters that solely affect other countries in the Union, and they may not solely vote on the same matters as they affect England.
It's quite obvious that English Votes for English Laws is required, however it's implemented. It's a necessary EVEL ...
English MPs are third class in that they may not vote on certain matters that solely affect other countries in the Union, and they may not solely vote on the same matters as they affect England.
It's quite obvious that English Votes for English Laws is required, however it's implemented. It's a necessary EVEL ...
It's well known rhyming slang for gawds sake. Perhaps some on here should be a bit more diverse ?
The term sweaties/Jocks whatever is not meant to be offensive and should not be taken as such. There is too much taking of offence over some really pathetic small items. There are far bigger things to worry about than this.
Perhaps I should take offence at being called a pommie or pommes?
The term sweaties/Jocks whatever is not meant to be offensive and should not be taken as such. There is too much taking of offence over some really pathetic small items. There are far bigger things to worry about than this.
Perhaps I should take offence at being called a pommie or pommes?
YMB, The nickname 'pommy/pom' was created by Australians (almost certainly) on the basis that new arrivals from Britain got rapidly sunburnt and took on the bright red hue of the pomegranate. No, it doesn't have anything to do with prisoners! Accordingly, why would anyone find, "My goodness, aren't you sunburnt!" as being particularly offensive?
Similarly, the nickname 'limey' came about when American seamen discovered that British sailors were made to eat limes in order to ward off scurvy on long voyages. Again, there is nothing offensive whatsoever in the name.
The French 'rosbif' is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the British love of 'roast beef'. Utterly inoffensive again, so nicknames ABOUT us are mild.
Why is it then that, since rhyming slang is basically a Cockney/English habit, so many nicknames for nationalities created BY the English are clearly - and deliberately - offensive?
Similarly, the nickname 'limey' came about when American seamen discovered that British sailors were made to eat limes in order to ward off scurvy on long voyages. Again, there is nothing offensive whatsoever in the name.
The French 'rosbif' is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the British love of 'roast beef'. Utterly inoffensive again, so nicknames ABOUT us are mild.
Why is it then that, since rhyming slang is basically a Cockney/English habit, so many nicknames for nationalities created BY the English are clearly - and deliberately - offensive?
The combined total of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Westminster constituencies is 117. There are 533 English constituencies. Outnumbered by almost 5 to 1, what prospect is there that the non-English MPs - even in the unlikely event that they all "ganged-up" - could seriously undermine the will of the English MPs?
In addition, how many matters discussed in Parliament are truly "English-only" ones?
In addition, how many matters discussed in Parliament are truly "English-only" ones?
“…as a Scot I find it highly offensive that my democratic elected MP can be excluded from some debates on the whim of the speaker and by natural extension it would be very difficult from now on for any Scottish MP to hold any cabinet post.”
As an Englishman I find it offensive that my democratically elected MP is forbidden to discuss how a good bit of the money I pay in taxes is spent in Scotland. But hey-ho, the ridiculous “devolution” nonsense was bound to see that happen and it can only get worse.
As for Scottish MPs holding any Cabinet post, all the Scots have to do is to elect some MPs who are members of the party in (UK) government. Since they seem intent on electing, almost entirely, MPs from a party who do not field candidates outside Scotland and whose principle aims and policies are of little interest to anybody outside Scotland and since they make up less than 10% of the population (and are thus limited to a maximum of 59 seats) there is little chance of that. It has nothing to do with this measure.
“Ah right, so when Scottish MSPs are voting on things like tuition fees, that only affects Scotland and not England - but when English MPs vote on the same thing, that not only affects England but also Scotland?”
The Scots do not raise sufficient revenue to fund “their” universities. Nor are “their” university students exclusively Scots. A lot of Scots attend English universities and a lot of English students attend Scottish universities. So the issue of university fees does not affect only Scotland and should not be a devolved matter. It is outrageous that Scottish students attend Scottish Universities free of charge whilst English students pay fees to attend the same institution.
I thoroughly agree with OG. This measure is a nonsense and will cause more rancour than it solves. But it was always going to be thus with devolution. The thought of a purely “English Assembly” seems so horrific to the government for reasons unbeknown. They need to either (preferably) reverse devolution or create an English Parliament.
As an Englishman I find it offensive that my democratically elected MP is forbidden to discuss how a good bit of the money I pay in taxes is spent in Scotland. But hey-ho, the ridiculous “devolution” nonsense was bound to see that happen and it can only get worse.
As for Scottish MPs holding any Cabinet post, all the Scots have to do is to elect some MPs who are members of the party in (UK) government. Since they seem intent on electing, almost entirely, MPs from a party who do not field candidates outside Scotland and whose principle aims and policies are of little interest to anybody outside Scotland and since they make up less than 10% of the population (and are thus limited to a maximum of 59 seats) there is little chance of that. It has nothing to do with this measure.
“Ah right, so when Scottish MSPs are voting on things like tuition fees, that only affects Scotland and not England - but when English MPs vote on the same thing, that not only affects England but also Scotland?”
The Scots do not raise sufficient revenue to fund “their” universities. Nor are “their” university students exclusively Scots. A lot of Scots attend English universities and a lot of English students attend Scottish universities. So the issue of university fees does not affect only Scotland and should not be a devolved matter. It is outrageous that Scottish students attend Scottish Universities free of charge whilst English students pay fees to attend the same institution.
I thoroughly agree with OG. This measure is a nonsense and will cause more rancour than it solves. But it was always going to be thus with devolution. The thought of a purely “English Assembly” seems so horrific to the government for reasons unbeknown. They need to either (preferably) reverse devolution or create an English Parliament.
"You come across as intelligent" - pete I'm flattered, most of the anti British on here give me an IQ of about 5, so thanks! It's a 2 n 8 = state. I do actually come from a London family though I don't live there now I do consider it a cultural thing. My Granddad especially is responsible for my usage but really it's used every day by those who don't even know they are using it. It is not offensive an those that find it so do not understand or are taking offence when none is given. Anyway thanks me old china!
Why invent one piece of slang to code for another piece of slang though?
As a side issue, what is the derivation of "Jock"? Is it meant to be an imitation of the sound of "d'y'ken?"
Anyway, can anyone think of an unpleasant bodily secretion which rhymes with cockey or cockneys? I've only come up with *******ese, so far. It's affectionate, meant in jest; not offensive, honest, guv.
As a side issue, what is the derivation of "Jock"? Is it meant to be an imitation of the sound of "d'y'ken?"
Anyway, can anyone think of an unpleasant bodily secretion which rhymes with cockey or cockneys? I've only come up with *******ese, so far. It's affectionate, meant in jest; not offensive, honest, guv.
Latest Posts
How Do Indian Manufacturers Ensure The...
Science14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
ChatterBank154 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles182 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles184 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.