Britain - The Official Thread

[ExigeEvan]

The oil that Westminster claims for itself. And tourism. Those are the arguments in favour of it.

I'm not against it per say, that's entirely for the Scottish people to decide and I won't be offended either way but I feel that it will be a logistical nightmare to sort out. Would Scotland become totally independent? What about the EU? NATO? The UN? Would it keep the Queen as Head of State and function like Canada and Australia within the Commonwealth? Passport control, embassies, roads, rail, airspace, currency, nuclear armmament and so many things I can't immediately think of.

It's a whole mass of things. For example Schengen area, the UK currently isn't part of this. Should Scotland gain independence would it then wish to join the open EU borders? If so, how does England react to this? It would effectively cut communities in half if it was to close the Scottish border.

In terms of the nuclear weapons, I think Scotland could be convinced to keep the base on the grounds of it will need help in controlling it's fishing zones. Should Scotland seek to control it's own seas I think Iceland's fishing fleet might make an opportunistic dash for it's waters.

The same can be said of it's airspace, I believe as part of NATO it would have a responsibility to secure it's airspace (against soft-touch Russian patrols), but it wouldn't be capable of it. So it would either have to allow other NATO members or allow the status quo to continue. And I don't think too many NATO members would be willing to step on the toes of the existing forces, unless we saw it as a cost saving measure.

It's the fact that 'most things' are based in England which is the problem. The Scots feel disenfranchised and unrepresented, I think. As do we Welsh, but we're far less likely to want a referendum on independence.

I don't think Wales will push for independence in my life time, unless we become the home of Fusion energy or something and have something England needs. Or perhaps fracking in the short term (2-3 decades).

 

[TheCracker]

It's the fact that 'most things' are based in England which is the problem. The Scots feel disenfranchised and unrepresented, I think. As do we Welsh, but we're far less likely to want a referendum on independence.

At least the Scots and Welsh have a chance of independence. Most northerners feel every bit as disenfranchised and unrepresented. But it's never going to happen for us.

 

[Liquid]

I don't think Wales will push for independence in my life time, unless we become the home of Fusion energy or something and have something England needs. Or perhaps fracking in the short term (2-3 decades).

We have coal, gas and water; things which are used by the rest of the UK.

Oh, and lots of lovely countryside which English border councils use as landfills. Obviously we need landfills, but councils should try and find areas within their own jurisdictions, really.

 

[ExigeEvan]

We have coal gas,

Buried under towns and areas of natural beauty.

There's loads of coal near Port Talbot, the steel works are dying for it, but it's under Margam country park and Baglan communities. They are trying to get it with coal gasification but no-one wants the ground under them "burning".

water; things which are used by the rest of the UK.

Water we do have, but while the market is there you'll never get good money for it. I forsee better water management and desalination in the South East before they start running an overground pipeline from Wales.

Oh, and lots of lovely countryside which English border councils use as landfills. Obviously we need landfills, but councils should try and find areas within their own jurisdictions, really.

Landfill is considerably reduced these days, and most companies are choosing to burn or use pyrolysis to power high-energy processes.

 

[Liquid]

Buried under towns and areas of natural beauty.

There's loads of coal near Port Talbot, the steel works are dying for it, but it's under Margam country park and Baglan communities. They are trying to get it with coal gasification but no-one wants the ground under them "burning".

Pardon my ignorance, but what do the Steelworks want with coal?

Point of Ayr was one of the last deep pits in the country. Flintshire Coalfield itself was/is quite small, but there's still a fair amount of coal left underground.

If things become desperate in 20-30 years, you can guarantee they'll have that coal out of the ground faster than you can say Rhosllanerchrugog.

Water we do have, but while the market is there you'll never get good money for it. I forsee better water management and desalination in the South East before they start running an overground pipeline from Wales.

Maybe not to the South East, but some firms do source their water from Wales.

Water isn't a major money earner, you're right (See: Water/Diamond paradox). But, we should turn the Severn into a power station. Put that limitless tide to good use. Build some dams. Reduce our dependecy on using up all that gas out in the Douglas complex.

Landfill is considerably reduced these days, and most companies are choosing to burn or use pyrolysis to power high-energy processes.

I also think we should burn up the landfills. But it was only recently that a Merseyside council started dumping its rubbish outside Wrexham. Caused a stir. Locals were opposed, of course.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Pardon my ignorance, but what do the Steelworks want with coal?

Clean coal power station and coke for the smelting process.

It's a massively high energy process, and yet only the last 2 years have they started putting their waste combustible gasses through gas-turbines, and that's only because energy costs were so high they could get a return in 2 years on power savings.

Plus, if they control the coal/gas then they aren't at the mercy of foreign markets. Same as the company my dad works for, they plan to use pyrolysis because household waste prices aren't going to fluctuate with costs.

Point of Ayr was one of the last deep pits in the country. Flintshire Coalfield itself was/is quite small, but there's still a fair amount of coal left underground.

If things become desperate in 20-30 years, you can guarantee they'll have that coal out of the ground faster than you can say Rhosllanerchrugog.

True, but a lot has to happen for it to be economical. For example in Australia they dig for 10 years to reach the good gold deposits, but they stuff they dig in the time still contains gold, just not enough to process.

Same for coal, it's there, we know it is, but at the depth and the modern health and safety (not just for workers by surrounding communities) the cost is huge.

Water isn't a major money earner, you're right (See: Water/Diamond paradox). But, we should turn the Severn into a power station. Put that limitless tide to good use. Build some dams. Reduce our dependecy on using up all that gas out in the Douglas complex.

I'm all for the Severn barge, the biggest possible. But sadly it either won't go ahead or will do in a far smaller form.

 

[Robin]

For the first time ever in its history the boat race has just stopped because some guy probably protesting swam right in front of the boats and nearly got hit by an oar.

He will probably claim the river is a public space

 

[Robin]

They have now restarted the race and Oxford broke their oar within seconds. Not a great day for the rowing set I guess!

 

[PeterJB]

Are boat races normally this crazy?

 

[Robin]

Are boat races normally this crazy?

Nope, most of the time they are pretty average. Maybe it can now give F1 a run for its money! at least the BBC have full coverage of it.

 

[TopGearFTW]

Honestly the boat race is ridiculously boring, it's made into a big deal when only two small groups of people actually care about it, plus the sooner Clare Balding disappears from my TV the better.
[/rant]

 

[ExigeEvan]

Are boat races normally this crazy?

Only when they decide to do their best Viking long-boat impressions and hit each other.

 

[Lizard]

My view was trying something not too different from de-nazifacation in Germany everyone seemed to like that idea at the time.

After thinking I don't hold this view of banning the BNP at all tiredness does strange things to you, although I didn't really hold the view then I said I was supprised they were not banned casually IE not really agreeing with them not actually meaning ban them but when Famine called me on it I for some reason felt a need to defend myself as a good person with proper morals rather than actually wanting to defend the cause.


Anyway the Boat race. Who the hell decides they want a swim then? Was it a protest?

 

[homeforsummer]

The correct british answer to that is, its nice to see you, to see you nice

That's the answer I was implying

 

[Moglet]

I heard this on the radio this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17813116

Just as we're going in to another recession, families are already relying on food banks to eat. Apparently some parents are skipping meals just so their children can eat. I had trust in this government for a while but not any more; they are ridiculously out of touch with the real world!

 

[ASH32]

Some of these people don't actually need to use foodbanks but would rather buy drugs and alcohol with their money and get their food for free. For others though they actually do need these places and there isn't enough of them. Of course the goverment won't do anything about it as usual because they either don't know these problems exist or they just don't care.

 

[Famine]

I had trust in this government for a while but not any more; they are ridiculously out of touch with the real world!

Of course they are. They're, for the most part, public schoolboys who went to university (Oxbridge usually, occasionally a major redbrick) to study law, politics, economics, history or PPE. So are most politicians in this country, regardless of party.

Check out the leader of the opposition - he skips out public school, but he grew up in Camden, Chalk Hill and BOSTON, Massachussetts. He was a violinist. He went to Corpus Christi, Oxford where he studied... PPE. Then LSE where he got an MA in Economics.

Try his predecessor. He was the son of a minister, brought up in the equivalent of a vicarage, went to an experimental school in Kirkcaldy, went to the University of Edinburgh (early) and did a BA, MA and PhD in History. And his predecessor attended the Chorister School in Durham and boarded - boarded - at Fettes, did law at St. John's, Oxford and became a lawyer, married a lawyer and has a brother who is a High Court judge.

Leaders of the "Labour" party


The problem is that we have a massive deficit - generated by these people who are ridiculously out of touch with the real world - and it has to be cut. It's almost inevitable that cutting the deficit - which is achieved by cutting what you're spending money on - results in loss of public-funded jobs and projects which results in a reduction in the money in the economy (people have less to spend, so they spend less). I don't know anyone who is surprised that we're technically in recession (two successive quarters of negative growth) again because it's pretty much what you should expect from cutting deficits - things get a little worse before they get better.

We have a massive deficit because we have too much money being spent on public-funded jobs and projects (like... the Olympics; thank the previous government for that one) because we've spent too long inflating the size and scope of goverment - rather than have them serve us, we've come to have us rely on them. Every time you've voted for an ex-public school, redbrick university law/politics/economics/history graduate based on what you think they can give you, you've voted for the status quo, regardless of the colour of the riband they wear - they're all authoritarian/right, just to varying degrees.

The current government - as traditional capitalists - are the people you really would want to be running an economy, but it remains the case that they are still part of the problem. They're constrained by a system they are in part responsible for - a system that gives out far too much money, often to itself, because we've given them that power over the last sixty years. Even if we had a Ron Paul Revolution in the UK, it would come to naught because of the last sixty years of building a system that exists to preserve itself. It's almost unrecoverable now - we should vote the current lot (blue or yellow - or both) back in and allow them to carry on making a self-sufficient economy, but what we'll do is say "We've got no money right now because of the current lot, so let's vote the other lot in". We'll get five years of absolutely nothing happening and it all being blamed on the previous lot - while public spending is slowly ramped up and covered up (no gold to sell off this time - perhaps they'll just get another credit card... they're like addicts - they'll sell the family silver to get another fix, when they run out they'll borrow money and when they can't they'll steal it - from you) and the economy gets absolutely boned into a cocked hat.

We've got one generation to fix it. We won't even try - we'll just keep on picking the people who have the best publicity. Noticed how Miliband is now copying every single one of Blair's mannerisms (including speech patterns)? Think that's an accident? It was the most successful PR exercise in the history of British politics, one that even got away with murder* so it's little surprise Wallace thinks it'll get him elected too...


* Allegedly

 

[ExigeEvan]

They're constrained by a system they are in part responsible for - a system that gives out far too much money, often to itself, because we've given them that power over the last sixty years.

This. The system is screwed. We spend public money and we may get more people off the social funds teet. We save public money and we end up with more people on the social funds teet.


I'm not sure if anyone watched Daily Politics today (Holla' at me semi/unemployed) but Ed Balls needed a massive kick in the surname. He was asked 2 very straight forward questions repeatedly, ignored them, side stepped them, criticised them for being too simple and further dodged them.

Then ignored the facts on the American economy presented to him. While everyone else laughed at him.

I will not vote Labour or Lib Dem. But it'll take a massive decision for me to vote Tory.

 

[Ardius]

Spoiled vote is the only choice I can make I feel for the next election, I wouldn't like to see any of the current choices in power but I still want to vote to show that I do care.

 

[MSTER232]

*extremely long post*

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/19488147.jpg​

No wonder why you have 40,000+ posts. Just joking .

 

[TyrrellRacing]

I'm curious, what's the general consensus on UKIP ?

 

[Lizard]

*Already another thread on that * (My pre edit post that is)

Whats everyones view on the NHS and the education system?

 

[Emptyone]

I'm curious, what's the general consensus on UKIP ?

Sometimes during the last election Nigel Farage seemed to make some sense with his ideas for governing, but others were somewhat nonsensical. They're sort of like a less radical BNP is what it seems like to me, not quite as far right.

 

[Famine]

I'm curious, what's the general consensus on UKIP ?

The BNP is the home of racists who would otherwise support Labour. UKIP is the home of racists who would otherwise support the Conservatives.

UKIP's style of racism is a bit less overt. BNP is out and out racism, UKIP is just racism against people who look quite like them but speak funny.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm curious, what's the general consensus on UKIP ?

BNP without the skinheads.

 

[Nessy]

(Slightly off topic).

I really do think that watching BBC One Question time, should be a part of every school's curriculum in some kind of way.. that and channel 4 news.

 

[Liquid]

PMQ studies and Question Time studies should be on the curriculum.

And courses in how to wire a plug and building a shed.

 

[Ross]

(Slightly off topic).

I really do think that watching BBC One Question time, should be a part of every school's curriculum in some kind of way.. that and channel 4 news.

This and The Big Questions on BBC 1 on Sunday mornings.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Thanks for the replies although I am somewhat surprised that the general view of UKIP is negative.

Reading through their policies they seem to be the most right wing of the mainstream parties, although I didn't really think they were racist. I wouldn't have said they believe their race to be superior, just that there are too many people in the country, which I agree with and that the counties benefits (there's a better word for it but I can't think of it) should belong to the people of Britain in the same way that my possessions belong to me. I can't imagine them wanting to kick foreign people out if they are a benefit to the country.

I agree with pretty much all of their policies on crime, energy, education, health and housing. Of course, their main priority is withdrawal from the EU. I don't know enough about the economics to pass judgement on it, although if some of the ridiculous stories I hear about it are true, then I can't say I oppose it.

What concerns me about UKIP is that they seem too archaic.

 

[Ross]

I have to say, I like UKIP for their independence policies but not the racist ones. I reckon if the UK got out of the EU, there would be bad and good but more good.