ChatterBank15 mins ago
Ukip In Scotland
33 Answers
This is an update on a Tora thread from a few weeks ago about Nigel Farage's reception in Edinburgh. He was there at the time to promote the UKIP's candidate, Otto Inglis, in the upcoming by-election for the Scottish parliament in the Aberdeen Donside seat. I said at the time that I'd check on the result on June 21st, so here it is:
SNP 9,814
Lab 7,789
LibDem 1,940
Con 1,791
UKIP 1,128
Others 916
It certainly looks as if UKIP has a more substantial hill to climb in Scotland than they found recently in England. Also good to see the Tories are still pretty-much an endangered species north of the border. http://
SNP 9,814
Lab 7,789
LibDem 1,940
Con 1,791
UKIP 1,128
Others 916
It certainly looks as if UKIP has a more substantial hill to climb in Scotland than they found recently in England. Also good to see the Tories are still pretty-much an endangered species north of the border. http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit
/// Almost as strange as people arguing that the UK countries are stronger in a Union, but not stronger in a union of 27 countries. ///
Nothing strange about that, we have a parliament of our own people, who attend to our interests, not a group of foreigners who regularly oppose our interests.
/// Almost as strange as people arguing that the UK countries are stronger in a Union, but not stronger in a union of 27 countries. ///
Nothing strange about that, we have a parliament of our own people, who attend to our interests, not a group of foreigners who regularly oppose our interests.
Ludwig,
I can only see the latter haapening in the next 10 years if the former happened (which doesn't look likely)
They are linked because should Scotland win Independance there will be a very strong Tory Majority in Westminster in the next election, if they don't it's very unlikely that there will be.
Time is running out for UKIP because if the EU-US trade zone is agreed leaving the EU would mean leaving that which would be a very obvious and powerful reason for staying in.
Right now it's not high on the national agenda but in 5 years time it will be
I can only see the latter haapening in the next 10 years if the former happened (which doesn't look likely)
They are linked because should Scotland win Independance there will be a very strong Tory Majority in Westminster in the next election, if they don't it's very unlikely that there will be.
Time is running out for UKIP because if the EU-US trade zone is agreed leaving the EU would mean leaving that which would be a very obvious and powerful reason for staying in.
Right now it's not high on the national agenda but in 5 years time it will be
// Nothing strange about that, we have a parliament of our own people, who attend to our interests, not a group of foreigners who regularly oppose our interests. //
You clearly have no idea how the EU works, which is not surprising. Laws and policies do not materialise out of thin air. They are worked on by everyone including us brits. We have representatives on the committees who see draft directives at a early stage and can suggest or lobby for changes. When the committees are happy with it, the draft directive is circulated and eventually the full parliament including all our elected MEPs decide if it will become law or not.
Sometimes, the vote goes against our interests because we are just one country in 27. We are still able to opt out of some legislation if we do not like it.
Part of the problem is that our Government has decided to take a backseat in the EU rather than driving it. The result is we some end up where we do not want to go. We should tey to dominate the EU, influence its direction, and participate fully. That way, we are more likely to take it where we want it.
You clearly have no idea how the EU works, which is not surprising. Laws and policies do not materialise out of thin air. They are worked on by everyone including us brits. We have representatives on the committees who see draft directives at a early stage and can suggest or lobby for changes. When the committees are happy with it, the draft directive is circulated and eventually the full parliament including all our elected MEPs decide if it will become law or not.
Sometimes, the vote goes against our interests because we are just one country in 27. We are still able to opt out of some legislation if we do not like it.
Part of the problem is that our Government has decided to take a backseat in the EU rather than driving it. The result is we some end up where we do not want to go. We should tey to dominate the EU, influence its direction, and participate fully. That way, we are more likely to take it where we want it.
NJ, before you hint at the West Lothian Question, you really ought to fully explain what I call the Bishop Question. The Church of England is the established religion only in England, so why do 26 of its bishops - English to a man, I daresay - have any role in formulating legislation that affects Scotland in the House of Lords ? None of the senior clerics in the Kirk of Scotland have any such say in matters affecting the English.
Baldric, you really ought to consult the horse's mouth as regards dictionaries rather than one of its subsidiaries. The actual Oxford English Dictionary offers under 'Jock' (a) a by-form of the name John (b) any Scotsman, frequently as a nickname or (c) a rustic. Your suggestion that it is (quote) "often offensive", is if true clearly an indictment - not of the Scots - but of any Englishman who chooses to use it thus!
Wharton, my thanks for your suggestion as to 'best answer' for Modeller but I think my own immediate response to him..."Does anyone ELSE seriously imagine Sots vote only against things?"...was adquate. However, quite a stotter, as you say!
Baldric, you really ought to consult the horse's mouth as regards dictionaries rather than one of its subsidiaries. The actual Oxford English Dictionary offers under 'Jock' (a) a by-form of the name John (b) any Scotsman, frequently as a nickname or (c) a rustic. Your suggestion that it is (quote) "often offensive", is if true clearly an indictment - not of the Scots - but of any Englishman who chooses to use it thus!
Wharton, my thanks for your suggestion as to 'best answer' for Modeller but I think my own immediate response to him..."Does anyone ELSE seriously imagine Sots vote only against things?"...was adquate. However, quite a stotter, as you say!
Quite agree, QM.
There should be no "Lords Spiritual" at all be they English, Scottish or of any other origin. Although there may be a Godly reason, there is no earthly reason why meddlsome priests should be allowed by right into the UK Parliament, especially when the vast majority of the electorate does not follow the religion those priests represent.
There should be no "Lords Spiritual" at all be they English, Scottish or of any other origin. Although there may be a Godly reason, there is no earthly reason why meddlsome priests should be allowed by right into the UK Parliament, especially when the vast majority of the electorate does not follow the religion those priests represent.
Thanks for that response, NJ. I agree that religious 'rank' should be no basis for making one automatically part of a country's legislature. We're not Iran, after all! However, my key reason for raising the matter here was not so much the religion but the total Englishness of the people who 'qualify' in the UK. I don't often hear ordinary English people drawing attention to this particular feature, though some of them do resent Scottish MPs impacting England. I can't see very much difference.
