Be seen at the polling station on Thursday

[Sue]

If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
yourselves noticed as cyclists.

If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?

--
Sue ];(:)

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
Sue > writes:
> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.

Interesting point. Particularly for someone like me, who can see the
polling station from his front window, and walk there with less
effort than getting the bike out.

Hmmm .... maybe I could do the Tescos run on Thursday and drop in on
the way home laden with shopping.

> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?

Or if they think the bike's just a toy ....

[1] well, actually the polling station is the church hall, and it's
the church itself I can see. But YKWIM.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[taywood]

"Sue" > wrote in message
...
> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
> Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
> party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
> yourselves noticed as cyclists.
>
> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?
>
> --
> Sue ];(:)

Mine is a postal vote.
How do you suggest I draw politicians attention to my cycling needs.


Incidentally if you're not postal voting have you followed the furore
in the media over the subject. Apart from some places getting forms
printed wrongly, the voting is dead easy.

Take the slip, put an X against a party, put the slip in the small envelope
and seal it. Put the envelope in the bigger envelope.
Sign the form, get it witnessed and put the form in the envelope.
The other form is a header with your address on. Turn it round to show
their address put that in the envelope so their address is in the clear
window. Seal the envelope and post it.
Thats it.
So if you hear of any grown sane person complaining they cant
understand that procedure you've gotta question either their mentality or
the state of our national education system or the negative attitude of our
media which never reports nice news.

[Michael MacClancy]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:18:38 +0100, taywood wrote:

>
> Incidentally if you're not postal voting have you followed the furore
> in the media over the subject. Apart from some places getting forms
> printed wrongly, the voting is dead easy.
>
> Take the slip, put an X against a party, put the slip in the small envelope
> and seal it. Put the envelope in the bigger envelope.
> Sign the form, get it witnessed and put the form in the envelope.
> The other form is a header with your address on. Turn it round to show
> their address put that in the envelope so their address is in the clear
> window. Seal the envelope and post it.
> Thats it.
> So if you hear of any grown sane person complaining they cant
> understand that procedure you've gotta question either their mentality or
> the state of our national education system or the negative attitude of our
> media which never reports nice news.

You may have just added to any confusion. My postal voting procedure is
very different to yours.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Tony Raven]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> You may have just added to any confusion. My postal voting procedure is
> very different to yours.

....and mine

Tony

[Zog The Undeniable]

Sue wrote:

> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
> Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
> party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
> yourselves noticed as cyclists.
>
> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?
>
Hmmm...whether to vote Labour, who start wars, build crap cycle paths,
have an MP who wants helmets for kids and have caved into the road
lobby, or the Tories, who support wars, ignore cyclists as an
irrelevance and *are* the road lobby?

LibDem anyone?

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
"taywood" > writes:

> So if you hear of any grown sane person complaining they cant

I hear two forms of complaint. One organisational: have the right
people actually got the voting slips? The other concerning usability
for those who are too physically disabled. Not quite sure how blind
people could better be served, until and unless we have an Internet-
based system that works and that people trust.

> the state of our national education system or the negative attitude of our
> media which never reports nice news.

No comment.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[Tony Raven]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Hmmm...whether to vote Labour, who start wars, build crap cycle paths,
> have an MP who wants helmets for kids and have caved into the road
> lobby, or the Tories, who support wars, ignore cyclists as an
> irrelevance and *are* the road lobby?
>

In the local elections I vote for the person and their interests. I would
rather vote for a cycling councillor who might understand the issues and do
something about it than vote for a Party which won't. After all its Council
employees who design and build cycle paths but they are not the ones who
introduce helmet laws or start wars. From Simon's accounts Hull has a council
that wants to encourage cycling and that has nothing to do with party politics
or we would see it being repeated all over the country.

Tony

[congokid]

In message >, taywood
> writes
>
>"Sue" > wrote in message
...
>> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
>> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
>> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
>> Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
>> party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
>> yourselves noticed as cyclists.
>>
>> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?

Write and tell

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

[congokid]

In message >, taywood
> writes

>Mine is a postal vote.
>How do you suggest I draw politicians attention to my cycling needs.

Write and tell them?

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

[[Not Responding]]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:29:32 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
> wrote:

>Sue wrote:
>
>> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
>> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
>> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
>> Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
>> party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
>> yourselves noticed as cyclists.
>>
>> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?

It's what you go on to do *after* the election that might make a
difference. Build a relationship with your local councillors, make
sure they know what's good and what's bad.

Better still, get involved yourself. You could even get elected. More
chance of changing things from within. (And you get paid. And you get
time off your day job).

I cannot understand why so few people are involved in local issues
these days.

>Hmmm...whether to vote Labour, who start wars, build crap cycle paths,
>have an MP who wants helmets for kids and have caved into the road
>lobby, or the Tories, who support wars, ignore cyclists as an
>irrelevance and *are* the road lobby?

Er, not all of them.

Theoretically, sustainability is core to Conservativism and making
users pay for services (including externalities such as pollution and
crash victims) is a basic tenet of free markets. Some of us still
remember this.

>
>LibDem anyone?

If we're talking local here, the only thing to do is tackle the
candidates and ask them. Some of the leading LDs round here are the
most most vociferous proponents of bigger, faster, cyclist-free roads.

Here, the *Council* is the road lobby[1] regardless of political hue.
But that's the result of democracy in action, I'm afraid. Cyclists
don't attend meetings, make deputations, write letters, complain or
propose solutions.

Motorists do this well. And they do it as residents, as individuals
rather than as pressure groups.

[1] At least until the 10th, there is one alternative voice.

[Richard Corfield]

On 2004-06-05, Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>
> You may have just added to any confusion. My postal voting procedure is
> very different to yours.

Mine is different to someone else I work with. We both signed eachother's
identity check things. She had postal voting for both the EU and the
local election. I have EU only, so my paperwork is quite different,
and there's no sign anywhere of a local election postal or otherwise. I
hope I've not missed out on it (Harrogate area).

She also got 3 votes in her local election, so presumably 3 crosses to
place. We both got one vote each in the EU.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

[Richard Corfield]

On 2004-06-05, congokid > wrote:
> In message >, taywood
> writes
>
>>Mine is a postal vote.
>>How do you suggest I draw politicians attention to my cycling needs.
>
> Write and tell them?
>

Been trying that. Got a good response in the local elections a couple of
years back when one party spread rumours about the other party's health
policies which, if true, would have put me a quite a disadvantage. I've
had one no-answer and one "I'll pass that on to the right person" this
time. Neither party got my vote in the end.

On the lines of cycling needs. I've worked out my cycle route to my new
workplace of next month - mostly off the main roads, and only 4 or 5
miles long! There are new off-road cycle paths, quite wide, going pretty
well where I want to go. Only potential problem is that they serve local
schools too, so may be busy, though I'm likely to be travelling outside
school travel times.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

[congokid]

In message
. dyndns.org>, Richard
Corfield > writes

>Only potential problem is that they serve local
>schools too, so may be busy, though I'm likely to be travelling outside
>school travel times.

No worries, the kids will all be in their parents' 4x4s.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

[taywood]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:18:38 +0100, taywood wrote:
>
>>
>> Incidentally if you're not postal voting have you followed the furore
>> in the media over the subject. Apart from some places getting forms
>> printed wrongly, the voting is dead easy.
snip
> You may have just added to any confusion. My postal voting procedure
> is very different to yours.

Yep, sorry for the confusion, wish I'd never mentioned it now.
In Lancashire County we are voting only for EU.
(on the voting slip we got a long list of parties, only one to be chosen.
Each party named its candidates and talking it over in the pub we'd
never heard of any of the people on our list)

[Richard Corfield]

On 2004-06-05, congokid > wrote:
> In message
. dyndns.org>, Richard
> Corfield > writes
>
>>Only potential problem is that they serve local
>>schools too, so may be busy, though I'm likely to be travelling outside
>>school travel times.
>
> No worries, the kids will all be in their parents' 4x4s.
>

Kids tend to react in various ways to the trike, depending on age and
mental maturity of the kid.

The new paths are good quality tarmac at the moment, so smoother than the
roads that they're alternatives to. I hope they stay that way.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

[Tim Henderson]

Zog The Undeniable > wrote in message news:<40c18584.0@entanet>...
> LibDem anyone?

Hounslow branch of the London Cycling Campaign held a hustings for our
Greater London Authority candidates. Only the Greens and the Lib Dems
turned up. Both had policies which were quite attractive to bikes -
but I was more impressed by the Green who was quite prepared to be
unconventionally "awkward". She gave a categoric thumbs up to
extending car congestion charging to Heathrow whereas the LibDem
policy was to wait until satellite positioning technology was in place
for all vehicles and then use that for road charging ......

Regards,
Tim

[David Martin]

On 5/6/04 11:31 am, in article ,
"[Not Responding]" > wrote:

> [1] At least until the 10th, there is one alternative voice.

Are you not standing again then?

...d

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Nick Kew
') wrote:

> In article >,
> "taywood" > writes:
>
>> So if you hear of any grown sane person complaining they cant
>
> I hear two forms of complaint. One organisational: have the right
> people actually got the voting slips? The other concerning usability
> for those who are too physically disabled. Not quite sure how blind
> people could better be served, until and unless we have an Internet-
> based system that works and that people trust.

I don't think that any Internet based system can ever be as good as
turning up in a polling booth and voting privately. With any system
that allows people to vote in their own homes, it's impossible to tell
whether a parent of partner was standing over the voter coercing them
to vote against their own personal choices. With the current system
it's virtually impossible to prevent outright fraud.

It's a bad idea.

If politicians want more people to vote (and lets face it we all
should), then they - the politicians - need to behave A LOT better, and
also be more responsive to public opinion.

Oh, and we need to put an end to prime ministers who invade other
countries because God told them to.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

> Theoretically, sustainability is core to Conservativism and making
> users pay for services (including externalities such as pollution and
> crash victims) is a basic tenet of free markets. Some of us still
> remember this.

What!? On which planet and what is it they smoke there?

The Tories are, first and foremost, the party of vested interest;
secondly the party of greed and corruption; thirdly, unprincipled and
opportunistic to a fault. For each of these reasons they are in the
pocket of the 'road lobby' and against anything which could lead to
their supporters having to pay the true costs of their lifestyle
choices.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

[Sue]

In message >, congokid
> writes
>>>
>>> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?
>
>Write and tell
>
Your letter is from one person only; if it's about cycling and they
think cyclists don't vote, they'll send it to Highways for a polite
dismissive answer and won't take any interest in the matter. An issue
that local politicians don't find sexy isn't an issue.
Our local cycle campaign has a few hundred members - enough to change
the result of elections, but only if they actually vote.

You'll notice I didn't say it matters who you vote for, since they won't
know - unless you can vote for a candidate who actually rides one. My
ward has a dozen candidates for three seats (thanks to boundary changes
they're all up for re-election) but none of their leaflets said whether
they ever cycle. If they think we're worth wooing they might even tell
us!

As for postal votes, now that I've spent two days sending the bloody
things out, I wouldn't allow them without a doctor's certificate!
I'm not doing that again, even though the organiser's a former workmate.
As for voting on the internet, the effect would be that the government
would end up with a database listing how everyone voted. In my day job
I look after databases; your secrets are NOT secret from me, even if I'm
not supposed to have access to them. They're not safe from my tampering,
and I can easily keep a copy without anyone knowing.
It has to be possible to trace votes because dead people are apt to vote
Tory, but with ballot papers nobody can snoop secretly - they need boxes
full of papers and dozens of people to check them. And when the time
limit's expired and the papers have been shredded, they're gone.

--
Sue ];(:)

[Graeme]

Simon Brooke > wrote in news:h21ap1-du4.ln1
@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:

> Oh, and we need to put an end to prime ministers who invade other
> countries because God told them to.
>

Dubya's God now is he? Or is this just in the eyes of himself and Tony?

Graeme

[[Not Responding]]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:54:18 +0100, David Martin
> wrote:

>On 5/6/04 11:31 am, in article ,
>"[Not Responding]" > wrote:
>
>> [1] At least until the 10th, there is one alternative voice.
>
>Are you not standing again then?
>
>..d

I'm standing but I'm not counting any chickens.

[Tony Raven]

Graeme wrote:
>
> Dubya's God now is he? Or is this just in the eyes of himself and Tony?
>

I don't think he's God - more "Oh God"

Tony ;-)

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:18:38 +0100, "taywood" >
wrote:

>
>"Sue" > wrote in message
...
>> If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
>> needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote. Be seen at the
>> polling station on Thursday, and get your fellow riders to do the same.
>> Vote in person so they can see you, wear your lycra/dayglo vest, ask the
>> party representatives to keep an eye on your bike while you go in. Get
>> yourselves noticed as cyclists.
>>
>> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?
>>
>> --
>> Sue ];(:)
>
>Mine is a postal vote.
>How do you suggest I draw politicians attention to my cycling needs.
>
>
>Incidentally if you're not postal voting have you followed the furore
>in the media over the subject. Apart from some places getting forms
>printed wrongly, the voting is dead easy.
>
>Take the slip, put an X against a party, put the slip in the small envelope
>and seal it. Put the envelope in the bigger envelope.
>Sign the form, get it witnessed and put the form in the envelope.
>The other form is a header with your address on. Turn it round to show
>their address put that in the envelope so their address is in the clear
>window. Seal the envelope and post it.
>Thats it.
>So if you hear of any grown sane person complaining they cant
>understand that procedure you've gotta question either their mentality or
>the state of our national education system or the negative attitude of our
>media which never reports nice news.

There's lots to complain about. Were you coerced to vote a certain
way? Did you sell your vote? The postal voting system magnifies
these threats. For those living on their own, finding a witness is
more difficult than going to a polling station.

[Danny Colyer]

Sue wrote:
> Your letter is from one person only;

I was taught at school (and have read a number of times since) that
politician's tend to regard a single letter as representing the views of
100 constituents. I assume that still holds true.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:47:40 +0100, Sue > wrote:

>>Write and tell
>>
>Your letter is from one person only; if it's about cycling and they
>think cyclists don't vote, they'll send it to Highways for a polite
>dismissive answer and won't take any interest in the matter.

We're one up on you here; we have a "Planning & Transportation"
department which sort of implies a bit more multi-modality. Highways
just fixes holes in roads.

>An issue
>that local politicians don't find sexy isn't an issue.

A single letter on a topic that is never mentioned again will
naturally get the "how quickly can I get this off my desk" treatment.
(Having written that, I can't think of a single example.)

I don't believe that cycling falls into this category. Here, the car
is pretty much king but cycling can still be a hot topic. It may not
crop up in letters much but it rears its head just about everywhere
else;

-schools are writing travel plans,
-new developments have travel plans and minimum levels of bike
parking,
-road safety targets get hammered everytime a cyclist gets mown down,
-congestion clogs the place up for 3 hours a day,
-air quality targets

I think the trick is to get cycling seen as a solution, not as a
problem.

Once councillors see cycling as a nice idea which just couldn't
possibly have enough support to actually happen; that's when you make
sure that the letters go in.

Not just letters; go to meetings, make deputations. Get involved with
the local branch of the party of your choice. Make use of the local
press.

But be very wary of being a single issue pressure group. It is much
more interesting to a councillor if he hears of people having trouble
cycling to work or parking bikes in town than getting leaned upon by
the CTC (etc) for generic better facilities.

>Our local cycle campaign has a few hundred members - enough to change
>the result of elections, but only if they actually vote.
>
>You'll notice I didn't say it matters who you vote for, since they won't
>know - unless you can vote for a candidate who actually rides one. My
>ward has a dozen candidates for three seats (thanks to boundary changes
>they're all up for re-election) but none of their leaflets said whether
>they ever cycle. If they think we're worth wooing they might even tell
>us!

I don't think I've ever mentioned it in my literature. I'd be as wary
of a candidate offering to fight for cyclists as I would of one
promising to "stand up for the motorist". It's a much bigger job than
that.

[congokid]

In message >, Danny Colyer
> writes
>Sue wrote:
>> Your letter is from one person only;
>
>I was taught at school (and have read a number of times since) that
>politician's tend to regard a single letter as representing the views
>of 100 constituents. I assume that still holds true.
>
A friend who was doing a fashion design and management course in Belfast
Technical College wrote to her local MP because the funding body was
holding up her grant. She was very surprised to get a letter from Ian
Paisley, on House of Commons stationery, telling her that he was writing
to them about it. The grant was released to her very quickly after that.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 09:58:10 +0100, congokid
> wrote:

>In message >, Danny Colyer
> writes
>>Sue wrote:
>>> Your letter is from one person only;
>>
>>I was taught at school (and have read a number of times since) that
>>politician's tend to regard a single letter as representing the views
>>of 100 constituents. I assume that still holds true.
>>
>A friend who was doing a fashion design and management course in Belfast
>Technical College wrote to her local MP because the funding body was
>holding up her grant. She was very surprised to get a letter from Ian
>Paisley, on House of Commons stationery, telling her that he was writing
>to them about it. The grant was released to her very quickly after that.

Unjamming the system and rattling cages seems to be half the job; at
both local and national level.

[Graeme]

congokid > wrote in news:Y6G
:

> She was very surprised to get a letter from Ian
> Paisley, on House of Commons stationery, telling her that he was writing
> to them about it.

He probably said he'd come round and shout at them.

Graeme

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:23:04 +0100, Sue > wrote
in message >:

>If you want your local politicians to take any notice of cyclists'
>needs, make sure they know cyclists bother to vote.

Please, Miss, my local candidate is the wife of my son's teacher who
is a cyclist himself ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Please, Miss, my local candidate is the wife of my son's teacher who
> is a cyclist himself ;-)
>
Welcome back Guy.

Is she a "Yes dear, please do buy that new bike you want" partner or a "he
spends more time with that bl**dy bike than with me partner"? It could make
all the difference to their policy towards cyclists ;-)

Tony

[Peter Connolly]

Marc Brett wrote:
> For those living on their own, finding a witness is
> more difficult than going to a polling station.

True, and exactly my situation. I will forge the witness statement and see
if they spot it.


Regards,

Pete.

[Jon Senior]

Peter Connolly opined
the following...
> True, and exactly my situation. I will forge the witness statement and see
> if they spot it.

Since you are obviously posting under a pseudoname, ensure that you
don't ever reveal your real name here! ;-)

Jon

[Dan Gregory]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> > > True, and exactly my
situation. I will forge the witness statement and see
> > if they spot it.
>
> Since you are obviously posting under a pseudoname, ensure that you
> don't ever reveal your real name here! ;-)
But isn't democracy about secret ballots so why on earth would they want to
know your real name anyway?
;-)) Dan Gregory


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.691 / Virus Database: 452 - Release Date: 26/05/04

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:18:38 +0100 someone who may be "taywood"
> wrote this:-

>Sign the form, get it witnessed and put the form in the envelope.

Why should people go through pointless things like this?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 23:35:03 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
> wrote this:-

>If politicians want more people to vote (and lets face it we all
>should),

I disagree. People should only vote if they want to.

A secret ballot would also give me more confidence.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:47:40 +0100 someone who may be Sue
> wrote this:-

>It has to be possible to trace votes because dead people are apt to vote
>Tory,

Ignoring the party political point, nobody has come up with a
convincing argument that it is impossible to have a secret ballot
while keeping fraud at current levels. It is simply inertia that
keeps non-secret ballots going.

>but with ballot papers nobody can snoop secretly - they need boxes
>full of papers and dozens of people to check them.

The papers are neatly sorted into political parties by the counters.
This means that dozens of people are not needed to check them.

>And when the time
>limit's expired and the papers have been shredded, they're gone.

Yes and no. Until then the individually numbered ballot papers and
the lists that relate your "secret" ballot paper to you are stored
by the council. Hardly reassuring.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Colin Blackburn]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:47:40 +0100, Sue > wrote:

> In message >, congokid
> > writes
>>>>
>>>> If they think we don't vote they won't care what we think, will they?
>>
>> Write and tell
>>
> Your letter is from one person only;

So, get several cyclists to write and tell them. A vote is a vote, it
doesn't have the word cyclist adorning it.

> It has to be possible to trace votes because dead people are apt to vote
> Tory,

I went walking last week, most of the rest of the party were Labour party
activists. They remarked that one of their old firebrands had managed to
vote when dead. She voted Labour. Nothing illegal though. She knew she was
not long for the world and so applied for a postal vote, returned it and
then died before polling day. Now, that's commitment!

Colin

[David Martin]

On 9/6/04 11:44 pm, in article ,
"David Hansen" > wrote:

> Yes and no. Until then the individually numbered ballot papers and
> the lists that relate your "secret" ballot paper to you are stored
> by the council. Hardly reassuring.

The manpower required to process these is quite considerable though.

Each voter is assigned a number (these are kept electronically, or at least
processed electronically at some point).

The list that relates the number to the ballot paper number is the stub of
the ballot paper book on which the individual numbers are written by hand as
the papers are assigned. This is essentially an unordered list so the time
taken to search is dependent on the number of votes cast.

This will give the ballot paper number. All teh ballot papers must now be
searched to find the relevant paper to determine how joe voted.

So the scale of the problem to retrieve an individual vote is On^2. By hand.

For determining the votes of everybody the problem is 2n but each step is
much bigger as you have to record and index the relevant numbers.

This makes it effectively impractical to retrieve an individuals voting
preferences.

...d

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:40:42 +0100 someone who may be "Colin
Blackburn" > wrote this:-

>So, get several cyclists to write and tell them. A vote is a vote, it
>doesn't have the word cyclist adorning it.

Agreed.

There were no party activists outside the polling station this
morning for me to ask about their policies.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Colin Blackburn]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:23:00 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:40:42 +0100 someone who may be "Colin
> Blackburn" > wrote this:-
>
>> So, get several cyclists to write and tell them. A vote is a vote, it
>> doesn't have the word cyclist adorning it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> There were no party activists outside the polling station this
> morning for me to ask about their policies.

Being in an experimental postal voting area we have seen no activists at
all. I've had leaflets from BNP, UKIP, our very own Metric Martyr
candidate and the Lib Dems, but not from either of the other two main
parties. Talking to the Labour activists last week on holiday it seems
polling day activism is increasingly confined to ring rounds in the week
before and then they only ring those who would vote for them anyway. The
North East's turn out might be increased but those voting may well be
doing so with less information than before.

Colin

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 10:23 am, in article ,
"David Hansen" > wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:40:42 +0100 someone who may be "Colin
> Blackburn" > wrote this:-
>
>> So, get several cyclists to write and tell them. A vote is a vote, it
>> doesn't have the word cyclist adorning it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> There were no party activists outside the polling station this
> morning for me to ask about their policies.
>

Weren't any here either, just placards for the SNP and the SSP. Total
electioneering was a single bundle of leaflets delivered by the Royal Mail
containing 3 insurance renewal thingys, four credit card offers and a
leaflet from each of SNP, SLP, SCUP, SGP, SLDP, UKIP and BNP. Nothing from
the SSP. No one has tried to solicit my vote at all..

I'd be surprised if there is more than a 20% turnout. Took my kids (6 and 7)
and the bike to the polling station on the way to school to at least give
them some idea of what democracy means in practice. (OK, do something and
get ignored for the next four years say the cynics.) I wheeled the bike
right into the polling place as there were a) no bike racks outside and b)
no activists to keep an eye on it.

As the polling station was otherwise empty there was no problem at all.

...d

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:47:31 +0100 someone who may be David Martin
> wrote this:-

>>leaflet from each of SNP, SLP, SCUP, SGP, SLDP, UKIP and BNP. Nothing from
>the SSP.

I had a leaflet from the socialists. I thought it was quite a good
one as it spoke about the sort of things the big parties would
rather ignore.

I do object to getting things from the likes of the BNP, but at
least it can be recycled.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:05 +0100 someone who may be David Martin
> wrote this:-

>> Yes and no. Until then the individually numbered ballot papers and
>> the lists that relate your "secret" ballot paper to you are stored
>> by the council. Hardly reassuring.
>
>The manpower required to process these is quite considerable though.

Depends what one is looking for. All those who voted Communist is a
trivial task with the current system.

Given that in Edinburgh all this information was stored in a
corridor for months who knows who looked at it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Roos Eisma]

David Martin > writes:

>> There were no party activists outside the polling station this
>> morning for me to ask about their policies.

>Weren't any here either, just placards for the SNP and the SSP. Total
>electioneering was a single bundle of leaflets delivered by the Royal Mail
>containing 3 insurance renewal thingys, four credit card offers and a
>leaflet from each of SNP, SLP, SCUP, SGP, SLDP, UKIP and BNP. Nothing from
>the SSP. No one has tried to solicit my vote at all..

At least voting gave me a nice ride over the bridge and back (I'm still
registered in Tayport). Royal Mail dutifully forwarded me a collection of
flyers from my old address, most of which were not very convincing.
Nobody at the polling station itself.

I did have another sort of voting decision this time - a while ago both
the UK and the NL sent me registration forms for the European elections,
giving me the choice to vote for one country or the other. I did wonder if
they would really find out if I had sent back both forms with the 'yes'
box ticked :-)

Roos

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 11:23 am, in article ,
"David Hansen" > wrote:

> Depends what one is looking for. All those who voted Communist is a
> trivial task with the current system.

For given values of trivial.

You still have to identify all the ballot papers (already done), from those
identify the stubs (could take some time to sort through several million,
although with them in books of ca. 100 that would be ten thousand stubs
books to screen, then look for the particular paper. This would take upwards
of several days of manual work which to my mind is not 'trivial'. It is
possible but is not trivial.


...d

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 11:42 am, in article ,
"Roos Eisma" > wrote:

> I did have another sort of voting decision this time - a while ago both
> the UK and the NL sent me registration forms for the European elections,
> giving me the choice to vote for one country or the other. I did wonder if
> they would really find out if I had sent back both forms with the 'yes'
> box ticked :-)

If I recall correctly, it is not illegal to be registered to vote in two
places, as long as you only vote in one.

...d

[Michael MacClancy]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:47:54 +0100, David Martin wrote:

> On 10/6/04 11:42 am, in article ,
> "Roos Eisma" > wrote:
>
>> I did have another sort of voting decision this time - a while ago both
>> the UK and the NL sent me registration forms for the European elections,
>> giving me the choice to vote for one country or the other. I did wonder if
>> they would really find out if I had sent back both forms with the 'yes'
>> box ticked :-)
>
> If I recall correctly, it is not illegal to be registered to vote in two
> places, as long as you only vote in one.
>
> ..d

Yes, but is it illegal to vote somewhere that you're registered in but no
longer reside in? So, if you originally live in Edinburgh and are
registered to vote in Edinburgh but move to Glasgow but don't get on the
Glasgow electoral register in time to vote in Glasgow is it still legal to
vote in Edinburgh? i.e vote in a constituency of which you are no longer a
constituent?
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 1:45 pm, in article ,
"Michael MacClancy" > wrote:

> Yes, but is it illegal to vote somewhere that you're registered in but no
> longer reside in? So, if you originally live in Edinburgh and are
> registered to vote in Edinburgh but move to Glasgow but don't get on the
> Glasgow electoral register in time to vote in Glasgow is it still legal to
> vote in Edinburgh? i.e vote in a constituency of which you are no longer a
> constituent?

Define constituent: On the electoral roll of the constituency would be a
reasonable definition, or resident in the constituency. WHat about someone
who is temporarily resident there/somwhere else?

As the electoral roll is updated annually this doesn't seem to be too bad a
definition.

...d

[Dave Larrington]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> Yes, but is it illegal to vote somewhere that you're registered in
> but no longer reside in? So, if you originally live in Edinburgh and
> are registered to vote in Edinburgh but move to Glasgow but don't get
> on the Glasgow electoral register in time to vote in Glasgow is it
> still legal to vote in Edinburgh? i.e vote in a constituency of
> which you are no longer a constituent?

I believe so. Back when I was a penniless student oaf, I lived in London
Town Devine but was on the electoral register in my parents' constituency.
In fact, it later turned out that I was on the electoral register in
Kensington & Chelsea as well, but don't tell the Law...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Michael MacClancy]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:25:15 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> Yes, but is it illegal to vote somewhere that you're registered in
>> but no longer reside in? So, if you originally live in Edinburgh and
>> are registered to vote in Edinburgh but move to Glasgow but don't get
>> on the Glasgow electoral register in time to vote in Glasgow is it
>> still legal to vote in Edinburgh? i.e vote in a constituency of
>> which you are no longer a constituent?
>
> I believe so. Back when I was a penniless student oaf, I lived in London
> Town Devine but was on the electoral register in my parents' constituency.
> In fact, it later turned out that I was on the electoral register in
> Kensington & Chelsea as well, but don't tell the Law...

I know that there's no problem with being on two registers, particularly
for students. This is permitted because there are many people (including
MPs) who have two residences used in aproximately equal measure. You are
only allowed to vote once, though.

My question was whether you can vote in a constituency to which you no
longer have any connections other than the fact that you're on the register
there.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:40:18 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
> wrote:

>> There were no party activists outside the polling station this
>> morning for me to ask about their policies.
>

No activists here in Worthing either, Colin. However, there was a very
nice lady who looked after my bike for a moment. There always is, come
to think of it.

>Being in an experimental postal voting area we have seen no activists at
>all. I've had leaflets from BNP, UKIP, our very own Metric Martyr
>candidate and the Lib Dems, but not from either of the other two main
>parties.

As well as what seemed like several million "personal" letters from
Michael Howard and one or two from the Lib Dems, I received a mailshot
from, IIRC, England's Party. Having had a quick glance at their web
site I thought they seemed to be far too similar to the BNP for my
liking.

Worthing is currently a Tory/Lib Dem 18 all score draw. So, replay
time with all to play for. When I say all to play for I really mean
not a great deal to pay for at all. Little has changed locally in the
15+ years I've been living here.

Labour does put up local candidates but activists only ever appear at
general elections.

Today's vote was a little more tricky than previous ones as the
polling station had moved. It has shifted about a quarter of a mile
from the local infants' school to the Methodist church. As well as
having to be able to put a cross in a box one now has to be able to do
basic detective work and map reading.

James

[Colin Blackburn]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:57:39 +0100, James Hodson
> wrote:

> As well as what seemed like several million "personal" letters from
> Michael Howard and one or two from the Lib Dems, I received a mailshot
> from, IIRC, England's Party. Having had a quick glance at their web
> site I thought they seemed to be far too similar to the BNP for my
> liking.

UKIP, Metric Martyr chappie (technically an Independent) and BNP seemed to
have a large overlap with varying degrees of anger. None expressed
opinions on cyclists but I can't help feeling that they would all use the
phrase 'lycra lout' if asked about cycling. The one postive is that the
racist vote will be split three ways.

> Today's vote was a little more tricky than previous ones as the
> polling station had moved. It has shifted about a quarter of a mile
> from the local infants' school to the Methodist church. As well as
> having to be able to put a cross in a box one now has to be able to do
> basic detective work and map reading.

Excellent, democracy for orienteers!

Colin

[Roos Eisma]

Michael MacClancy > writes:

>Yes, but is it illegal to vote somewhere that you're registered in but no
>longer reside in? So, if you originally live in Edinburgh and are
>registered to vote in Edinburgh but move to Glasgow but don't get on the
>Glasgow electoral register in time to vote in Glasgow is it still legal to
>vote in Edinburgh? i.e vote in a constituency of which you are no longer a
>constituent?

Thanks to Napoleon the Dutch voting register is linked with the population
register which keeps track of who lives where etc so there is only a
single register...
(saves a lot of hassle when moving house, things like road tax and council
tax and electoral register all are updated at the same time. Does have
some other drawbacks though.)

This is the only election where I have 2 options. I vote in Scotland for
any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the NL for
the national level.
So on local level constituency counts, on national level citizenship, and
on european level both.

Roos

[Robert Bruce]

mae > wedi ysgrifennu:

> I vote in Scotland
> for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
> NL for the national level.

Wooooaaaaaaaahhhhh! Scottish parliament *IS* national level.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

[Roos Eisma]

"Robert Bruce" > writes:

>mae > wedi ysgrifennu:

>> I vote in Scotland
>> for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
>> NL for the national level.

>Wooooaaaaaaaahhhhh! Scottish parliament *IS* national level.

Yes, I had that discussion with the Longforgan polling station last year.

They: "You have a cross next to your name - let's see what that means. Oh,
you're a foreigner and not allowed to vote"
Me: "Than why did I get a polling card?"
Back to their manual, and out comes: "You are only allowed to vote at
local level, not national". I then asked if that included the Scottish
parliament. More manual browsing followed. In the end they decided that I
could vote, don't know if they were right...

What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK level,
if they're both 'national'?

Roos

[Peter Clinch]

Robert Bruce wrote:
> mae > wedi ysgrifennu:

>>I vote in Scotland
>>for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
>>NL for the national level.

> Wooooaaaaaaaahhhhh! Scottish parliament *IS* national level.

<pedantometer function="on" reading="considerable")

But Dundee City Council is /not/ national level, and is covered by the
above statement.

</pedantometer>

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Roos Eisma]

Peter Clinch > writes:

>Robert Bruce wrote:
>> mae > wedi ysgrifennu:

>>>I vote in Scotland
>>>for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
>>>NL for the national level.

>> Wooooaaaaaaaahhhhh! Scottish parliament *IS* national level.

><pedantometer function="on" reading="considerable")

>But Dundee City Council is /not/ national level, and is covered by the
>above statement.

></pedantometer>

Guilty of non-exact phrasing (do I need my lawyer?).
I meant 'up to and including' and the choice to call that 'local' was
made by the people at the polling station!

Roos

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:12:23 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
> wrote:

>UKIP, Metric Martyr chappie (technically an Independent) and BNP seemed to
>have a large overlap with varying degrees of anger. None expressed
>opinions on cyclists but I can't help feeling that they would all use the
>phrase 'lycra lout' if asked about cycling. The one postive is that the
>racist vote will be split three ways.

I have a thought about why the BNP and the like get so few votes.
Assuming they can find the polling station, they find it hard to put a
cross n the box. They most likely think they're signing their name.
Now, if one had to put a thumb print or a prison number instead of a
"X" then I'm sure they'd do better. (I inadvertently typed batter
instead of better at first. i guess this is apropriate.)

However, Colin, like someone else said elsewhere, I do believe the BNP
and other similar parties should - no, must - be allowed to field
candidates simply because that's the way our democracy works.
Fortunately in most areas of this country those parties get what they
deserve: a trouncing.

>Excellent, democracy for orienteers!
>
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Polling.gif>

James

[Peter Clinch]

Roos Eisma wrote:

> Guilty of non-exact phrasing (do I need my lawyer?).

No, it was quite exact, Robert might need his though ;-)

> I meant 'up to and including'

which will thus include non-national, so again with the pedantometer
reading well into the Red Zone what you said was quite right! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Robert Bruce]

mae > wedi ysgrifennu:

>
> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK
> level, if they're both 'national'?

The UK is not a nation; it's a state. The problem is that the UK is made up
of three nations (cue flames from Cornwall) and a bit of another (cue flames
from Ireland). So UK level would be 'state level', I suppose, but I admit
that sounds awkward.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Ambrose Nankivell > wrote:
> I'd add a third: what's to ensure that people get a secret ballot from other

Rumour has it that ``community leaders'' in certain parts of Birmingham
are collecting ballot papers from ``the community'' ``for
safe-keeping''. Police found three Labour concillors from that area on
an industrial estate with sacks full of postal ballots late last night
``sorting them out'', because they were worried they may be ``attacked''
at Labour HQ. Obviously, nothing improper has taken place, as parked
cars on an industrial estate late at night is the best place for ballot
papers to be processed.

Sheesh. Postal voting. How bent can you get?

ian

[David Hansen]

On 10 Jun 2004 15:23:33 GMT someone who may be Roos Eisma
> wrote this:-

>They: "You have a cross next to your name - let's see what that means. Oh,
>you're a foreigner and not allowed to vote"

It just shows how nervous officials and party politicians in the UK
are of "contamination" by "nasty foreigners".

Since this is supposed to be a European Union my view is very
simple; all citizens of EU countries must be able to vote where they
live, in any elections.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Robert Bruce]

mae > wedi ysgrifennu:
> Roos Eisma wrote:
>
>> Guilty of non-exact phrasing (do I need my lawyer?).
>
> No, it was quite exact, Robert might need his though ;-)
>
>> I meant 'up to and including'
>
> which will thus include non-national, so again with the pedantometer
> reading well into the Red Zone what you said was quite right! ;-)
>
> Pete.

Pedantry? Probably: Just one of those character traits that makes me both a
great business analyst and the most boring git who ever stepped into a
cocktail party.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

[Michael MacClancy]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:59:01 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> On 10 Jun 2004 15:23:33 GMT someone who may be Roos Eisma
> > wrote this:-
>
>>They: "You have a cross next to your name - let's see what that means. Oh,
>>you're a foreigner and not allowed to vote"
>
> It just shows how nervous officials and party politicians in the UK
> are of "contamination" by "nasty foreigners".

No. It just shows that they want to avoid abuse of the election system.

>
> Since this is supposed to be a European Union my view is very
> simple; all citizens of EU countries must be able to vote where they
> live, in any elections.

They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they want to
vote in. Why should you be able to vote on, for instance, national service
in Germany if you only happen to live there and, not being a German
citizen, are not subject to it?
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't
it." -Groucho Marx
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Michael MacClancy > wrote:
> They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they want to
> vote in. Why should you be able to vote on, for instance, national service
> in Germany if you only happen to live there and, not being a German
> citizen, are not subject to it?

Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?

ian

[Michael MacClancy]

On 10 Jun 2004 15:23:33 GMT, Roos Eisma wrote:


>
> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK level,
> if they're both 'national'?
>
> Roos

If they devolve government in England the local government will be by
regional assemblies. I guess the elections will be 'regional elections'
and this will become the usage for the Welsh and Scottish elections to.
(Although perhaps it will be resisted there.)
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 5:12 pm, in article , "Ian G
Batten" > wrote:

> In article >,
> Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>> They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they want to
>> vote in. Why should you be able to vote on, for instance, national service
>> in Germany if you only happen to live there and, not being a German
>> citizen, are not subject to it?
>
> Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
> fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?

Or indeed, why should John Reid the health secretary at westminister go on
about smoking in his constituency (coatbridge) when health is a devolved
matter and he has nothing to do with it there?

The West Lothian question is alive and well..

...d

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Roos Eisma
') wrote:

> This is the only election where I have 2 options. I vote in Scotland
> for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
> NL for the national level.

Oi!

> So on local level constituency counts, on national level citizenship,
> and on european level both.

Double oi!

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Roos Eisma
') wrote:


> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK
> level, if they're both 'national'?

Scottish is 'national'.

Westminster is 'a redundant anachronism'.

Note that no-one calls it 'the UK parliament'. It's 'the Westminster
parliament' for the very simple and excellent reason that it is only of
any importance within a very small area of a European city in another
country, more distant from many of us than Dublin, Copenhagen or
Amsterdam.

We don't need two unions of nations. We're in the European Union. 'the
United Kingdom' is dead, it just hasn't lain down yet.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:12:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> wrote:

>Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
>fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?

Ah, the good old West Lothian question (is that right?). I've yet to
be given a good reason as to why myself.

James

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> wrote in message
>:

>Postal voting. How bent can you get?

But the only alternative would be democracy, and we clearly can't have
that. Why is it that both the major parties worked so hard to ensure
that single transferrable vote was not introduced for either local or
Euro elections? After all, it would address one of the fundamental
problems of voter apathy, that a single vote "doesn't count" or is too
easily "wasted".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:16:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>But the only alternative would be democracy, and we clearly can't have
>that. Why is it that both the major parties worked so hard to ensure
>that single transferrable vote was not introduced for either local or
>Euro elections? After all, it would address one of the fundamental
>problems of voter apathy, that a single vote "doesn't count" or is too
>easily "wasted".

Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?

James

[Jon Senior]

Roos Eisma opined the following...
> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK level,
> if they're both 'national'?

Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally rather
than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete independance
("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh. At a point when
internationally, people are breaking down barriers and forming
alliances, for a country as small as Britain to be splitting up seems
ridiculous.

Besides. The first project for the Scottish "National" Parliament
involved the construction of their own home... when was Scotland
devolved? 1999 IIRC. 5 years and around 10 times over budget and they're
still sitting in a Church of Scotland (Or possible CoE... I can't
remember) building. Do we really want this kind of independance?

The only thing I see as good about true Scottish independance is that
they'll probably adopt the Euro to spite the English which would
definately be worth seeing.

Jon

[Jon Senior]

Simon Brooke opined the following...
> Note that no-one calls it 'the UK parliament'.

In my experience they call it the British Parliament. ;-)

> It's 'the Westminster
> parliament' for the very simple and excellent reason that it is only of
> any importance within a very small area of a European city in another
> country, more distant from many of us than Dublin, Copenhagen or
> Amsterdam.
>
> We don't need two unions of nations. We're in the European Union. 'the
> United Kingdom' is dead, it just hasn't lain down yet.

Possibly. However, a common language (within certain tolerances!),
common currency and the fact that as 3 (4?) separate countries within
the EU, each would lack the (vague) economic strength of the UK.

Jon

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:21:08 +0100, James Hodson
> wrote in message
>:

>>Why is it that both the major parties worked so hard to ensure
>>that single transferrable vote was not introduced for either local or
>>Euro elections? After all, it would address one of the fundamental
>>problems of voter apathy, that a single vote "doesn't count" or is too
>>easily "wasted".

>Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?

Q: Why do I support the Lib-Dems?

A: They are the only mainstream party committed to electoral reform.

'nuff said.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:06:38 +0100 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy > wrote this:-

>They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they want to
>vote in.

They are already citizens of the EU.

I have my own views on conscription. These are constrained by the
fact that a member of my family spent many years training
conscripts. Just as they were becoming proficient they left, whether
this was initial training or refresher training. As a result they
would not have been much use in an emergency. His view, having
served between 1939 and 1968, was that conscription is a political
means of reducing unemployment. That view seems fair enough to me.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:39:23 +0100 someone who may be James Hodson
> wrote this:-

>>Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
>>fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?
>
>Ah, the good old West Lothian question (is that right?). I've yet to
>be given a good reason as to why myself.

The current situation is a fudge. The reason it is a fudge is that
when the Labour Party offered England regional government (before
1997) it got a lukewarm response.

The Westminster rogues gallery is generally more respected in
England than elsewhere.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:56:37 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
Batten > wrote this:-

>Sheesh. Postal voting. How bent can you get?

Florida.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>common currency

You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
to be nationalised.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
James Hodson > wrote:
> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?

For the first time in my life I voted LD today. OK, partly because the
candidate is a uk.misc regular who I've met a couple of times, but
somehow their wet nice policies look very tempting.

ian

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
David Hansen <> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:56:37 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
> Batten > wrote this:-
>
> >Sheesh. Postal voting. How bent can you get?
>
> Florida.

Actually, if half of what appears to be happening in Birmingham is found
to be true, Florida is going to look pretty good.

And anyway, had Nader not run, Gore would be president. I hope the
Greens who thought he was a safe protest vote are very happy with their
choice of president. Nader's going to run again: I bet Bush is chuffed
to bits to see Greens organising to keep Bush in power.

ian

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
David Hansen <> wrote:
> The current situation is a fudge. The reason it is a fudge is that
> when the Labour Party offered England regional government (before
> 1997) it got a lukewarm response.

I happen to think that D Day memorials for the fallen matter more than
golf dinners. But first ministers in Scotland and Wales don't.
``Regional Government'' my arse: they're just parish councils.

ian

[David Martin]

On 10/6/04 8:18 pm, in article ,
"David Hansen" > wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>
>> common currency
>
> You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
> currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
> Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
> it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
> Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
> financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
> to be nationalised.
>
Was this not part of the act of union in 1700 that Scotland could continue
to issue it's own currency?

And the bank of scotland is older than the bank of England..

...d

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen opined the following...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>
> >common currency
>
> You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
> currency would be issued by a common bank.

Just as the Euro is?

> While this is the case in
> Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
> it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
> Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
> financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
> to be nationalised.

The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in
Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If
it was a different currency, then the coinage would be unacceptible
south of the border and we'd see separate trading in the Scottish Pound
on the currencies markets.

I'm sorry, but the UK does have a common currency. The ability to print
a note does not a separate currency make.

Jon

[James Annan]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> My question was whether you can vote in a constituency to which you no
> longer have any connections other than the fact that you're on the
register
> there.

I'm sure you can. Otherwise what about people who happen to have moved
and are not yet on the local register at their new location?

James

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:50 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
>:

>The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in
>Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

And there was me thinking they used the Pound Stirling...

IGMC

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Gawnsoft]

On 10 Jun 2004 15:23:33 GMT, Roos Eisma > wrote (more
or less):

>"Robert Bruce" > writes:
>
>>mae > wedi ysgrifennu:
>
>>> I vote in Scotland
>>> for any local elections (up to Scottish parliament), and vote in the
>>> NL for the national level.
>
>>Wooooaaaaaaaahhhhh! Scottish parliament *IS* national level.
>
>Yes, I had that discussion with the Longforgan polling station last year.
>
>They: "You have a cross next to your name - let's see what that means. Oh,
>you're a foreigner and not allowed to vote"
>Me: "Than why did I get a polling card?"
>Back to their manual, and out comes: "You are only allowed to vote at
>local level, not national". I then asked if that included the Scottish
>parliament. More manual browsing followed. In the end they decided that I
>could vote, don't know if they were right...
>
>What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK level,
>if they're both 'national'?

The UK is 'national' in the same way the EU is 'national.

Both of them are uinions of nations. It just so happens that the UK
did it's unifying a long time ago, and so presents as a unified
superstate, which may happen one day with the EU, too.

As has happened with the USA.




--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:12:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> wrote (more or less):

>In article >,
>Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>> They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they want to
>> vote in. Why should you be able to vote on, for instance, national service
>> in Germany if you only happen to live there and, not being a German
>> citizen, are not subject to it?
>
>Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
>fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?

Because the English insist on keeping the difference between parochial
English matters and UK national matters blurred by insisting that the
UK national parliament at Westminster deals with parochial English
matters.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:18:35 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote (more or less):

>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
><jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>
>>common currency
>
>You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
>currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
>Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
>it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
>Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
>financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
>to be nationalised.

AIUI, they received the licence to print money in return for
promnising not to take over the English banks, a long, long time ago.

I've never understood why it seemed a good deal to the Scottish banks
at the time, mind you.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Gawnsoft > typed:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:18:35 +0100, David Hansen
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
>> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>> common currency
>>
>> You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
>> currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
>> Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
>> it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
>> Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
>> financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
>> to be nationalised.
>
> AIUI, they received the licence to print money in return for
> promising not to take over the English banks, a long, long time ago.

What about the Halifax & NatWest? I think the right should be revoked
immediately. ;)

> I've never understood why it seemed a good deal to the Scottish banks
> at the time, mind you.

I guess the expense of carting banknotes up from London at the time would
have been pretty prohibitive. Given that most of the English banks trading
in Scotland still fill their cashpoints with Scottish issued notes, despite
the distance most other goods travel nowadays, then the incentive in
previous times must have been much greater.

Ambrose

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:24:54 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Roos Eisma opined the following...
>> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK level,
>> if they're both 'national'?
>
>Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally rather
>than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete independance
>("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh.

Why? Persoanlly, I see a lot of sense in being represented directly
in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than going through London
intermediaries.

> At a point when
>internationally, people are breaking down barriers and forming
>alliances, for a country as small as Britain to be splitting up seems
>ridiculous.
>
>Besides. The first project for the Scottish "National" Parliament
>involved the construction of their own home... when was Scotland
>devolved? 1999 IIRC. 5 years and around 10 times over budget

When I reflect on the cost and time overruns, and the actual cost of
the latest office block for Westminster (aka Portcullis House) I find
it really hard to get worked up over Holyrood. (Other than the fact
it looks minging)

>and they're
>still sitting in a Church of Scotland (Or possible CoE... I can't
>remember) building. Do we really want this kind of independance?

You won't find many, if any, CoE buildings in Scotland. Even the
closest local affiliate to the CoE was formed and grew independantly
of the CoE.

>The only thing I see as good about true Scottish independance is that
>they'll probably adopt the Euro to spite the English which would
>definately be worth seeing.

That the fact that Scotland is frequently amongst the highest
manufacturing trade per capita in europe, and a lot of the goods are
for continental Europe, rather than the rest of the UK.

So it makes as much sense to trade in Euros as in UKP, there being no
such thing as a perfect common currency area.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, James Hodson
') wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:16:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>>But the only alternative would be democracy, and we clearly can't have
>>that. Why is it that both the major parties worked so hard to ensure
>>that single transferrable vote was not introduced for either local or
>>Euro elections? After all, it would address one of the fundamental
>>problems of voter apathy, that a single vote "doesn't count" or is too
>>easily "wasted".
>
> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?

Well I'm no lib dem, but I think some form of proportional
representation is the best - only - way to go. I personally think the
Irish multi-member constituency is better than the curious mish-mash
we've currently got in Scotland, with 'constituency' MPs and 'list'
MPs; but what we've got is nevertheless clearly better than the
Westminster model.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> Simon Brooke opined the following...
>>
>> We don't need two unions of nations. We're in the European Union.
>> 'the United Kingdom' is dead, it just hasn't lain down yet.
>
> Possibly. However, a common language (within certain tolerances!),
> common currency and the fact that as 3 (4?) separate countries within
> the EU, each would lack the (vague) economic strength of the UK.

So we'd be as badly off as, oooh, say Denmark. Or Holland. Or Sweden. Or
Finland. Or Ireland. I think we could put up with that.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Ian G Batten
') wrote:

> In article >,
> Michael MacClancy > wrote:
>> They can. They only have to become citizens of the countries they
>> want to
>> vote in. Why should you be able to vote on, for instance, national
>> service in Germany if you only happen to live there and, not being a
>> German citizen, are not subject to it?
>
> Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
> fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?

Simple. They shouldn't.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:19:12 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:


>
>I do object to getting things from the likes of the BNP, but at
>least it can be recycled.

But I fid the print comes off on my bum.


Tim
--
For those who have trouble distinguishing, cynicsm, sarcasm, humour etc,
try mentally inserting smilies thoughout my post until it either
matches what you'd like to read, or what you'd expect me to write.

(Jon Senior urc)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, David Martin
') wrote:

> On 10/6/04 8:18 pm, in article
> , "David Hansen"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
>> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>> common currency
>>
>> You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
>> currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
>> Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
>> it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
>> Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
>> financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
>> to be nationalised.
>>
> Was this not part of the act of union in 1700 that Scotland could
> continue to issue it's own currency?

1707. The only currency mentioned in the text of the act is the pound
sterling, which was the English currency, and the text of the act does
not mention anything about who got to issue currency. It is a fact that
Scotland was pretty much bankrupt after the collapse of the Companie of
Scotland, and the Merk had pretty much collapsed. That's why the
'parcel of rogues' were 'bought and sold with English gold'. Scotland
had none left.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Gawnsoft
t') wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:18:35 +0100, David Hansen
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:29:45 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
>><jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>>common currency
>>
>>You misunderstand the subtle nature of various things. A common
>>currency would be issued by a common bank. While this is the case in
>>Wales and England (though there are "Welsh" versions of some coins)
>>it is not the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed in
>>Scotland the banks issue their own notes, due to the lack of
>>financial scandals that caused the issuing of bank notes in England
>>to be nationalised.
>
> AIUI, they received the licence to print money in return for
> promnising not to take over the English banks, a long, long time ago.

Au contraire, all banks in all the constituent nations of the union used
to print their own notes. However, a series of banking scandals in
England during the nineteenth century led to legislation in England and
Wales outlawing the practice. Scotland and Ireland had not had similar
scandals, and so did not.

And Guy, the currency is Sterling (like silver). Stirling is the county
town of Stirlingshire.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit
;; you, in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am
;; nocht acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> Roos Eisma opined the following...
>> What words would you use to describe the Scottish level vs the UK
>> level, if they're both 'national'?
>
> Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally rather
> than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete independance
> ("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh. At a point when
> internationally, people are breaking down barriers and forming
> alliances, for a country as small as Britain to be splitting up seems
> ridiculous.

We're part of Europe now. We're represented in the European parliament.
More importantly, Europe is essentially controlled by the Council of
Ministers. 'Britain' has (I think) the second largest population of any
member state, but has no more say on the Council of Ministers than
Ireland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland - all highly successful
Northern European nations about the same size as Scotland. Scotland
could only gain from having its own seat at the top table rather than
being represented as part of a union in which we are a minority and
have little effective say.

> Besides. The first project for the Scottish "National" Parliament
> involved the construction of their own home... when was Scotland
> devolved? 1999 IIRC. 5 years and around 10 times over budget and
> they're still sitting in a Church of Scotland (Or possible CoE... I
> can't remember) building. Do we really want this kind of independance?

Prestige government projects tend to be cock-ups in every country of the
world. In this case the reason we're saddled with this monstrosity is
because we had not one but two perfectly good parliament buildings in
Edinburgh, one of them the oldest purpose built parliament building in
Europe, but the Labour party was too chicken to turf the College of
Advocates out of that one, and thought that the other (which had been
designated and converted into a parliament building by a Labour
Government) was a 'nationalist symbol' and therefore could not be used,
even though it was ready and was standing empty - and indeed I believe
still is.

Yes, the building issue is an embarrassment. But it really isn't the
Parliament's embarrassment. It's the Labour party's embarrassment - it
was the Labour government (in Westminster) which decided, before the
parliament had even been elected, that it was to have a new building.

> The only thing I see as good about true Scottish independance is that
> they'll probably adopt the Euro to spite the English which would
> definately be worth seeing.

Well it would definitely be a good thing for us, and after all the pound
isn't our currency in the first place.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Simon Brooke > typed:
>
> And Guy, the currency is Sterling (like silver). Stirling is the
> county town of Stirlingshire.

I think that was intentional. Not quite sure of the reasoning behind the
pun, but...

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Simon Brooke > typed:
<somewhat overgenerous snip>
> Holland

Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
it.

Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)

A

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
David Hansen > writes:

> The Westminster rogues gallery is generally more respected in
> England than elsewhere.

For values of "England" in "The metropolitan chattering classes and
stockbroker belt", extended by the influence of London-based media.
The Westminster Idiots Club most certainly doesn't represent us here,
and we don't have anything akin to your (limited) national parliament.

Bah, humbug.

--
Nick Kew

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> In ,
> Simon Brooke > typed:
> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>> Holland
>
> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
> it.
>
> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
> countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
> km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)
>
> A

And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:05:25 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
Batten > wrote this:-

>I happen to think that D Day memorials for the fallen matter more than
>golf dinners.

So did a lot of people in Scotland, hence the sudden change of mind
and the admissions that the whole thing was a ghastly mistake.

I'm quite sure as great a proportion of people in Wales thought the
same and one may ponder on why he didn't change his mind.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Colin Blackburn]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke >
wrote:

> And Guy, the currency is Sterling (like silver). Stirling is the county
> town of Stirlingshire.

I take it you missed the IGMC.

Colin

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:50 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in
>Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

It has the same value.

>If
>it was a different currency, then the coinage would be unacceptible
>south of the border

The coinage is common, with a few exceptions like the ones I have
mentioned. Paper money from Scotland and Northern Ireland is
strictly not valid in England or Wales.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Colin Blackburn]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:43:49 +0100, James Hodson
> wrote:


> I have a thought about why the BNP and the like get so few votes.
> Assuming they can find the polling station, they find it hard to put a
> cross n the box. They most likely think they're signing their name.
> Now, if one had to put a thumb print or a prison number instead of a
> "X" then I'm sure they'd do better.

The postal voting system requires them to sign their name of make their
mark. So, theo Xs will do, one in a box and one under your name.
Unfortunately, the witness needs to be able to write their address
properly so some literacy is required.

Colin

[Peter Clinch]

Robert Bruce wrote:

> Pedantry? Probably: Just one of those character traits that makes me both a
> great business analyst and the most boring git who ever stepped into a
> cocktail party.

Ah, but to be pedantic here, the pedantry was more on my part! ;-) "Up
to and including national level" is not the same thing as "national
level, period" is what I was getting at, in a rather pedantsome vein... ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin Blackburn]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:36:08 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:50 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>
>> The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in
>> Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
>
> It has the same value.
>
>> If
>> it was a different currency, then the coinage would be unacceptible
>> south of the border
>
> The coinage is common, with a few exceptions like the ones I have
> mentioned. Paper money from Scotland and Northern Ireland is
> strictly not valid in England or Wales.

It depends what you mean by not valid.

As legal tender, ie in the settlement of legal debts, then English notes
are legal tender in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. In Scotland
the only legal tender for unlimited amounts are one and two pound coins.
Scottish notes are not legal tender in Scotland (or England.)

Anything can be accepted in payment: Scottish notes, cowrie shells or the
Vietnamese Dong. Scottish notes are easy as they have the same value as
English notes and no commission is charged to convert between the two.

Colin

[Peter Clinch]

James Hodson wrote:

> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?

I was a Labour supporter when I joined Charter 88. The complete failure
of Labour to do anything useful about electoral reform is a lot of the
reason I generally vote Lib Dem these days.
The main difference between Lab and Con on electoral reform is at least
the Tories are unashamed power crazed dickheads rather than power crazed
dickheads pretending they want to do something about a voting system
that can give carte blanche to people with 40% of the active vote.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> And Guy, the currency is Sterling (like silver). Stirling is the
> county town of Stirlingshire

They don't have sarcasm on Betegeuse and Ford frequently failed to notice it
unless it was pointed out to him.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[David Martin]

On 11/6/04 8:55 am, in article , "Peter Clinch"
> wrote:

> James Hodson wrote:
>
>> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?
>
> I was a Labour supporter when I joined Charter 88. The complete failure
> of Labour to do anything useful about electoral reform is a lot of the
> reason I generally vote Lib Dem these days.

What would be really nice is a 'Mr potato head' politician where one can
build an appropriate set of policies on peripheral issues such as PR.


> The main difference between Lab and Con on electoral reform is at least
> the Tories are unashamed power crazed dickheads
Anyone who gets elected turns into a power crazed dickhead. It's a human
trait, not a Tory one.

> rather than power crazed
> dickheads pretending they want to do something about a voting system
> that can give carte blanche to people with 40% of the active vote.

Power crazed dickheads or hypocritical power crazed dickheads - you decide..

...d

[Allan]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> Why should MPs representing Scotish seats be able to vote on Top-Up
> fees, when their constituents are not subject to them?
> ian

Good point. the reverse of this happened for nearly 300 years before the
recall of the Scottish Parliment. MPs representing English seats were
able to vote on Scottish issues that would not effect their constituents
(ie poll tax) but for some strange reason this was alright. Currently I
think Scots MPs should have the good grace to abstein from English
matters.

Allan

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> Persoanlly, I see a lot of sense in being represented directly
> in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than going through London
> intermediaries.

Brussels, yes; Strasbourg is the second most complete waste of money in the
EU, after the CAP.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
David Hansen <> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:05:25 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
> Batten > wrote this:-
>
> >I happen to think that D Day memorials for the fallen matter more than
> >golf dinners.
>
> So did a lot of people in Scotland, hence the sudden change of mind
> and the admissions that the whole thing was a ghastly mistake.

What disqualifies him from serious consideration as a politician is the
degree of stupidity, arrogance and insularity which meant that no-one in
the Scottish Executive or whatever it's called noticed the clash and
pointed out that it might be a bit of a problem. If the first time he
noticed the difficulty was when the media pointed it out then he's a
moron, pure and simple.

> I'm quite sure as great a proportion of people in Wales thought the
> same and one may ponder on why he didn't change his mind.

In both cases, it's because given the choice between meeting and
greeting with world leaders or having a few sharpeners in the clubhouse
they chose the latter. Hence my comment ``parish council'' --- no
serious poltiician, and no serious national government, would dream of
making such a choice.

ian

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> What disqualifies him from serious consideration as a politician is
> the degree of stupidity, arrogance and insularity which meant that
> no-one in the Scottish Executive or whatever it's called noticed the
> clash and pointed out that it might be a bit of a problem. If the
> first time he noticed the difficulty was when the media pointed it
> out then he's a moron, pure and simple.

Unless, of course, the media storm is just a result of mischievous digs from
his political opponents. I vividly remember how it was politically
unacceptable at the time of Diana's death to express the opinion that her
death was of anything less than earth-shattering import. I was roundly
denounced for saying that the money wasted on flowers would have been better
spent on the landmine charities which had existed for decades before Diana
ever heard about them.

The 50th anniversary of D-Day was well supported; why should a politician
whose diary is planned months if not years in advance realise that 60 would
suddenly become a magic anniversary as well? Or are we to require all our
poltiticians to hold themselves in readiness for every Agincourt Day or
whatever?

The fault, if fault exists, may lie with the organisers of the ceremonies,
for failing to state adequately the extent of the event they were planning.
I get the feeling that things were already quite well underway before some
people thought through the fact that most veterans would not make the 75th
anniversary, so decided to ramp up the scale of what was being planned.
This could, of course, be a mistaken impression.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[David Martin]

On 11/6/04 9:49 am, in article , "Ian G
Batten" > wrote:

> In both cases, it's because given the choice between meeting and
> greeting with world leaders or having a few sharpeners in the clubhouse
> they chose the latter.

That is a little harsh. It would be more akin to meeting the head of FIFA at
an anniversery of the foundation of football.

Still a crass mistake to make (and one would have thought that the R&A and
prince Andrew would have known better as well).

...d

[Colin Blackburn]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:51:10 +0100, Nick Kew >
wrote:

> In article >,
> David Hansen > writes:
>
>> The Westminster rogues gallery is generally more respected in
>> England than elsewhere.
>
> For values of "England" in "The metropolitan chattering classes and
> stockbroker belt", extended by the influence of London-based media.

Yep. I got fed up of being told it was Super Thursday (yuk!) as the people
of England were voting in three separate elections! Forgive me for not
living in London but I just got one vote yesterday and that was for the
EU, no local elections and certainly no London Mayoral vote.

Colin

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> The 50th anniversary of D-Day was well supported; why should a politician
> whose diary is planned months if not years in advance realise that 60 would
> suddenly become a magic anniversary as well? Or are we to require all our

That's the ``The Queen of England, the President of the United States,
the President or equivalent of France, Germany and other major European
Powers, The British Prime Minister, the heir to the British throne and
leaders of many Commonwealth countries are coming, but The Scottish
First Minister's and Welsh First Minister's diaries are a bit full''
argument? I'm not convinced. Is the Scottish First Minister's diary
_really_ fuller than the Queen's? George Bush's? Do you seriously
believe that?

> I vividly remember how it was politically unacceptable at the time of
> Diana's death to express the opinion that her death was of anything
> less than earth-shattering import. I was roundly denounced for saying
> that the money wasted on flowers would have been better spent on the
> landmine charities which had existed for decades before Diana ever
> heard about them.

I entirely agree. However, if your view is that those veterans marching
are just fools who should stay at home and stop bleating, I suggest you
just come out and say so directly. Is it your contention that D Day is
as trivial as the death of a minor royal?


> I get the feeling that things were already quite well underway before
> some people thought through the fact that most veterans would not make
> the 75th anniversary, so decided to ramp up the scale of what was
> being planned. This could, of course, be a mistaken impression.

And yet Bush and the Queen could easily make it. I presume the Scots
and the Welsh leadership are just ashamed of their veterans.

ian

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
David Martin > wrote:
> Still a crass mistake to make

Precisely. The issue isn't the event, directly: it's the political
stupidity of it. It implies that there aren't many competent civil
servants around him.

ian

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Ian G Batten wrote:

> if your view is that those veterans
> marching are just fools who should stay at home and stop bleating, I
> suggest you just come out and say so directly. Is it your contention
> that D Day is as trivial as the death of a minor royal?

There is a difference between D-Day and the sixtieth (as opposed to the 59th
or 61st) anniversary of D-Day. I have rarely missed a remembrance service
in all my adult life, and have a friend who landed on D-Day (and another who
was on the Sir Galahad, incidentally).

> And yet Bush and the Queen could easily make it. I presume the Scots
> and the Welsh leadership are just ashamed of their veterans.

Or their civil servants are less well briefed. Or some other explanation.

I suggest you apply Hanlon's Razor.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
Ian G Batten > writes:

> That's the ``The Queen of England,

whose purpose is ceremonial, and who has strong historic links to this
kind of thing.

> the President of the United States,

who is desparate to link his current wars to a historical war when his
country was - by pretty much universal consensus - on the "right" side.

> the President or equivalent of France, Germany and other major European
> Powers,

Who carry a lot of historic and current political baggage, but (crucially)
aren't deeply implicated in todays atrocities.

> The British Prime Minister,

c.f. the President of the United States

> the heir to the British throne and

c.f. the Queen.

> leaders of many Commonwealth countries are coming, but The Scottish
> First Minister's and Welsh First Minister's diaries are a bit full''

Scotland and Wales (along with England, which doesn't have a parliament)
are in a more difficult position than the above. Their leaders may find
a propaganda effort to associate todays wars with the last time their
countries went to war for a genuinely valid cause deeply problematic.

For my own part, I found it hard enough to say no when, as a singer,
I was "expected" to participate in a concert for a military audience.
Once upon a time I'd have happily said yes to that.

No disrespect to the old men who served in 1944, but why is the 60th
anniversary so much bigger than the 50th was? And as for historically
significant events, where's the celebration of Magna Carta?

> I entirely agree. However, if your view is that those veterans marching

Those veterans have my respect. But it's disgusting to see todays
politicians propagandising their event.

--
Nick Kew

[Terry D]

James Hodson wrote;
<snip>
> No activists here in Worthing either, Colin. However, there was a very
> nice lady who looked after my bike for a moment. There always is, come
> to think of it.
>
> James
<snip>

Same in Guildford. I had to chain my bike to a wooden bench 'cause there was
no-one in the car park to look after it. Inside the hall I was disappointed
to discover that only three people were getting the benefit of meeting a
super fit voter :-) resplendant in h*lm*t, day glo yellow top and
b*bshorts. Not a political person in sight, I should have walked!

Terry Duckmanton.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:49:23 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
Batten > wrote this:-

>What disqualifies him from serious consideration as a politician is the
>degree of stupidity, arrogance and insularity which meant that no-one in
>the Scottish Executive or whatever it's called noticed the clash and
>pointed out that it might be a bit of a problem. If the first time he
>noticed the difficulty was when the media pointed it out then he's a
>moron, pure and simple.

I have never taken him seriously as anything. He is only in the
position because of the Glasgow mafia in the Labour Party. The night
of the long knives he instituted so that he is surrounded by yes
ministers was the mark of a small mind. His predecessor, who had
many faults, would probably not have made the same mistake in my
view despite living in St Andrews.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Nick Kew > wrote:
> No disrespect to the old men who served in 1944, but why is the 60th
> anniversary so much bigger than the 50th was?

Because there ain't going to be a 70th. They'll mostly be dead by then.

ian

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:00:52 +0100 someone who may be
(Nick Kew) wrote this:-

>> That's the ``The Queen of England,
>
>whose purpose is ceremonial, and who has strong historic links to this
>kind of thing.

She is also Elizabeth the First of Scotland and Queen of many of the
other countries involved (Canada for a start).


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Gawnsoft]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> wrote (more or less):

>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>> Holland
>>
>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
>> it.
>>
>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
>> countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
>> km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)
>>
>> A
>
>And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.

Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.

But they're still more comparable than say, Scotland and Germany.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Ian G Batten
') wrote:

> In article >,
> Nick Kew > wrote:
>> Scotland and Wales (along with England, which doesn't have a
>> parliament)
>> are in a more difficult position than the above. Their leaders may
>> find a propaganda effort to associate todays wars with the last time
>> their countries went to war for a genuinely valid cause deeply
>> problematic.
>
> So why didn't they say that? Not ``I will not attend this as I have a
> golf club meeting to attend'' but ``I will not attend this because I
> believe that in doing so I am giving credence to a propaganda effort
> to defend atrocities''? If that was their justification, let them say
> so. I would gently suggest that if would make Michael Foot's donkey
> jacket look like electoral gold.

Yes, but that's because Scotland is to you 'a far away country ... of
which we know little'. Mind you, there is in this a lot in common with
the Michael Foot donkey jacket incident. Michael Foot, in fact, did not
wear a donkey jacket to the cenotaph. He wore a perfectly ordinary
plain overcoat, because it was a cold November day and he was an
elderly man. It suited the gutter press to make an enormous fuss out of
nothing. I am, heaven knows, no defender of McConnell but the present
fuss is equally stupid.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:45:21 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>>> In ,
>>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>>> Holland
>>>
>>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
>>> countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
>>> km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)
>>>
>>> A
>>
>>And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
>
> Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.
>

How do you work that out, then? I thought the Scottish and Irish
(Republic) populations were about 5.1m and 3.9m respectively.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having
you here." -Stephen Bishop
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Michael MacClancy > typed:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:45:21 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>> > wrote (more or less):
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In ,
>>>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>>>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>>>> Holland
>>>>
>>>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I
>>>> understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north
>>>> EUian countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16
>>>> million in 33000 km^2, making it neither small nor geographically
>>>> similar to Scotland)
>>>
>>> And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
>>
>> Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.
>>
> How do you work that out, then? I thought the Scottish and Irish
> (Republic) populations were about 5.1m and 3.9m respectively.

And seeing as we're talking about Scottish independence, we might as well
assume a reunited Ireland, which would have a population of 6.6m.

Anyway, other reasons the Netherlands is different are because it has an
extremely urban based population with intensive agriculture, good
positioning as a transport hub (Rotterdam, Schiphol), easily travelled
terrain, and probably lots else.

But the comparison between Scotland and the other Nordic countries + Ireland
is fairly apposite, except for Denmark not having the hostile terrain common
to the others to some degree.

A

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen opined the following...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:50 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>=20
> >The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in=20
> >Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
>=20
> It has the same value.

And the same name and exchange rate with other currencies. To put it=20
simply... it is the same! When Pounds Sterling are traded separately=20
from Pounds Stirling (Thankyou Guy), then I'll accept that it is=20
different.=20

> >If=20
> >it was a different currency, then the coinage would be unacceptible=20
> >south of the border
>=20
> The coinage is common, with a few exceptions like the ones I have
> mentioned. Paper money from Scotland and Northern Ireland is
> strictly not valid in England or Wales.

Paper money is (IIRC) not actually true currency. The note is a=20
promisory awarded by the bank who guarantee to repay it's face value on=20
demand. Despite this, Scottish notes are certainly accepted south of the=20
border, and with the exception of the =A31 note I've never heard anyone=20
claim that they are not legal tender. Given the nature of the notes, and=20
(as others have pointed out) the fact that the "Scottish" banks are now=20
either owners of, or owned by English banks I would suspect that the=20
promise would have to hold true wherever.

Jon

[Jon Senior]

Just zis Guy, you know? opined the
following...
> And there was me thinking they used the Pound Stirling...

I currency that you'll get very far if you persist with these puns.

Jon

[Jon Senior]

Gawnsoft opined the
following...
> >Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally rather
> >than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete independance
> >("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh.
>
> Why? Persoanlly, I see a lot of sense in being represented directly
> in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than going through London
> intermediaries.

And you already are. Your local MEPs answer to you and their
constituency, not to Westminster. Local policies should be set locally.
But I've not seen any evidence to suggest that the UK as an economy
isn't stronger than the separate economies of England, Scotland and
Wales.

> When I reflect on the cost and time overruns, and the actual cost of
> the latest office block for Westminster (aka Portcullis House) I find
> it really hard to get worked up over Holyrood. (Other than the fact
> it looks minging)

I can. Because it's on my back door. If I lived in London, I'd be
equally irate. I hate seeing public money wasted on a half-arsed
"project" like Holyrood. Ignoring the aesthetics of it (Now there's a
challenge), I can't help but wonder at what else could have been done
with the money. One of my favourite jaunts around the city takes me
through some pretty well-off areas, and then through some of the "lower-
income" areas. Everytime I cycle past a crumbling 60s tower block, I
think how much nicer they were in Sheffield after they were faced. I've
no idea of the costs of facing a tower block, but in Sheffield they
managed about 10 near where I lived in less than 18 months. I'm pretty
sure that they could have given outer-Edinburgh a facelift for less than
the as-yet-unfinished bombproof (Who exactly is going to bomb the
Scottish parliament?) "tree" that is currently ruining the view of
Holyrood palace from Arthur's Seat.

> You won't find many, if any, CoE buildings in Scotland. Even the
> closest local affiliate to the CoE was formed and grew independantly
> of the CoE.

There are definately some CoE buildings. I remember seeing some. I've
met one of the men who is responsible for the technical side of the
Parliament building (as is) who was talking about what to do when it
reverted back to Co? control.

> That the fact that Scotland is frequently amongst the highest
> manufacturing trade per capita in europe, and a lot of the goods are
> for continental Europe, rather than the rest of the UK.

Logs and kilts I believe. :-)

> So it makes as much sense to trade in Euros as in UKP, there being no
> such thing as a perfect common currency area.

I agree entirely. I actually almost hope it happens just to embarrass
England & Wales into joining.

Jon

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:
> David Hansen opined the following...
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:41:50 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
>> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-
>>
>>> The pretty pictures on the notes notwithstanding, the currency in
>>> Scotland is the same as that in England, Wales, and Northern
>>> Ireland.
>>
>> It has the same value.
>
> And the same name and exchange rate with other currencies. To put it
> simply... it is the same! When Pounds Sterling are traded separately
> from Pounds Stirling (Thankyou Guy), then I'll accept that it is
> different.

Saw a sign in Brussels airport shortly after the introduction of the Euro
where they listed Scottish pounds as one of the currencies they took. I
guess after the various sorts of Krone, US$ and Yen, they'd run out of
currencies to list.

A

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:
> There are definately some CoE buildings. I remember seeing some. I've
> met one of the men who is responsible for the technical side of the
> Parliament building (as is) who was talking about what to do when it
> reverted back to Co? control.

I imagine that they probably belong to the Episcopal Church in Scotland.
Which is in the Anglican communion of which the Church of England is the key
member.

Anyway, it is the Church of Scotland's assembly hall in which they meet. The
episcopals don't own much in the old town.

A

[Whingin' Pom]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:22:50 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> () wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? opined the
>following...
>> And there was me thinking they used the Pound Stirling...
>
>I currency that you'll get very far if you persist with these puns.

I don't Lek it and I wish he'd let it Lei.
--
Matt K
Dunedin, NZ

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:17:40 +1200, Whingin' Pom
> wrote in message
>:

>>> And there was me thinking they used the Pound Stirling...
>>I currency that you'll get very far if you persist with these puns.
>I don't Lek it and I wish he'd let it Lei.

It's all downhil from here,Mark my words. Baht I'm off on the bike,
so you're on Eurown.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[[Not Responding]]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:01:46 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> wrote:

>In article >,
>James Hodson > wrote:
>> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?
>
>For the first time in my life I voted LD today. OK, partly because the
>candidate is a uk.misc regular who I've met a couple of times, but
>somehow their wet nice policies look very tempting.
>
>ian
>

PR, whatever permutation is a really, really undemocratic method.

Under PR, your chances of being elected are largely determined by your
position on the list. You get high on the list by vigourously sticking
to the party line. There is no room for those who, while agreeing with
the party philosophy, have differences with particular policies or
those who seek to represent a given local view.

Local selection has always thrown up elected representatives who are
happy and able to challenge their party's stance. This would never
happen under PR.

While PR might mean that a greater number of parties are represented,
in reality, it greatly reduces the spectrum of opinions represented.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:04:01 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
> wrote in message
>:

>PR, whatever permutation is a really, really undemocratic method.

Explain how single transferrable vote for named candidates in a Euro
election is undemocratic.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[[Not Responding]]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:06:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:04:01 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
> wrote in message
>:
>
>>PR, whatever permutation is a really, really undemocratic method.
>
>Explain how single transferrable vote for named candidates in a Euro
>election is undemocratic.
>

I don't think I've read a post that bears such striking resemblence to
an exam paper:)

[David Martin]

On 12/6/04 11:08 am, in article ,
"[Not Responding]" > wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:06:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:04:01 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
>> > wrote in message
>> >:
>>
>>> PR, whatever permutation is a really, really undemocratic method.
>>
>> Explain how single transferrable vote for named candidates in a Euro
>> election is undemocratic.
>>
>
> I don't think I've read a post that bears such striking resemblence to
> an exam paper:)
>
So?

Personally I object strongly to list based elections. It provides no
incentive for individuals to represent their constituents, just to suck up
to the party line.

There is only one true PR which is STV. This should be implemented for local
councils (as is supposed to be happening at some point in Scotland) but may
require a lot of educating in explaining how it works. Then again it works
in London for the Mayoral election so can't be too bad.

If we had the option of FPP or STV as first and second preference votes then
I would definitely prefer the PR one.

...d

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:54:07 +0100, David Martin
> wrote in message
>:

>There is only one true PR which is STV. This should be implemented for local
>councils (as is supposed to be happening at some point in Scotland) but may
>require a lot of educating in explaining how it works.

Not too hard to explain, mind. Place the candidates in order of
preference; leave blank any who you would prefer not to support. It
is the only fair way to elect a single candidate for a constituency,
in my view - with FPTP you almost always get a candidate who most
people did not vote for.

I would add "none of the above" and require that the candidate achieve
a minimum (say 30%) of the eligible vote after transfers, otherwise
the election would be void. That would give the parties an incentive
in increasing turnout, not just turnout among their own supporters.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> Gawnsoft opined the
> following...
>> >Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally
>> >rather than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete
>> >independance ("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh.
>>
>> Why? Persoanlly, I see a lot of sense in being represented directly
>> in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than going through London
>> intermediaries.
>
> And you already are. Your local MEPs answer to you and their
> constituency, not to Westminster.

So when you lobby your MEP to opppose software patents, for example, and
people all over Europe lobby their MEPs to vote down software patents,
for example, and the parliament acting on the advice of its
constituents very sensibly votes down software patents, for example,
and then the Council of Ministers institutes software patents without
any public discussion, your representation is where, precisely?

The European Union is not a democracy. The parliament has no power and
is just a talking shop. Decisions are made by private deals done
between governments in the Council of Ministers. Consequently, it would
be a very good thing to have at least some influence on the Council of
Ministers (although, personally, I think it should either be forced to
do all its business in public or better still simply disbanded).

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:01:46 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>James Hodson > wrote:
>>> Yebbut, Guy, do I hear the a Lib Dem person's approach here?
>>
>>For the first time in my life I voted LD today. OK, partly because
>>the candidate is a uk.misc regular who I've met a couple of times, but
>>somehow their wet nice policies look very tempting.
>
> PR, whatever permutation is a really, really undemocratic method.
>
> Under PR, your chances of being elected are largely determined by your
> position on the list.

Not in a multi-member constituency system.

> You get high on the list by vigourously sticking
> to the party line.

I'd agree with you that list systems give far too much power to the
party machine and are an extremely bad thing. However, that's no
defence of 'first past the post', which is a scandalously undemocratic
system. Yes, the list system is bad, but it ain't *that* bad.

> While PR might mean that a greater number of parties are represented,
> in reality, it greatly reduces the spectrum of opinions represented.

How do you explain the current makeup of the Scottish Parliament, then?
More independents and maverics than Westminster has had in a hundred
years, and (apart from the independents) ten different parties
represented. Couldn't possibly happen under proportional
representation, you say? It did.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

[Jon Senior]

Simon Brooke opined the following...
> in message >, Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:
>
> > Gawnsoft opined the
> > following...
> >> >Daft. I can see the advantages of setting local policy locally
> >> >rather than in London, but the frequent clamouring for complete
> >> >independance ("We don't need you!") just makes me laugh.
> >>
> >> Why? Persoanlly, I see a lot of sense in being represented directly
> >> in Brussels and Strasbourg, rather than going through London
> >> intermediaries.
> >
> > And you already are. Your local MEPs answer to you and their
> > constituency, not to Westminster.
>
> So when you lobby your MEP to opppose software patents, for example, and
> people all over Europe lobby their MEPs to vote down software patents,
> for example, and the parliament acting on the advice of its
> constituents very sensibly votes down software patents, for example,
> and then the Council of Ministers institutes software patents without
> any public discussion, your representation is where, precisely?

Lost in exactly the same way that you lobbying your local MPs gets lost.
Since we run a "representational" democracy, your vote basically means,
"I accept that your decisions may represent my views for the duration of
your term of office".

> The European Union is not a democracy. The parliament has no power and
> is just a talking shop. Decisions are made by private deals done
> between governments in the Council of Ministers. Consequently, it would
> be a very good thing to have at least some influence on the Council of
> Ministers (although, personally, I think it should either be forced to
> do all its business in public or better still simply disbanded).

Agreed. Not quite sure what impact this has on whole devolution issue
but never mind.

Jon

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:25:18 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
>:

>Lost in exactly the same way that you lobbying your local MPs gets lost.
>Since we run a "representational" democracy, your vote basically means,
>"I accept that your decisions may represent my views for the duration of
>your term of office".

Precisely. And this is why STV is the only defensible way to elect
MPs.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

>> The European Union is not a democracy. The parliament has no power
>> and is just a talking shop. Decisions are made by private deals done
>> between governments in the Council of Ministers. Consequently, it
>> would be a very good thing to have at least some influence on the
>> Council of Ministers (although, personally, I think it should either
>> be forced to do all its business in public or better still simply
>> disbanded).
>
> Agreed. Not quite sure what impact this has on whole devolution issue
> but never mind.

If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union of
nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an average
sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have an average
sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective voice at all in
the smaller one.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
> nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union of
> nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an average
> sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have an average
> sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective voice at all in
> the smaller one.

Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?

Tony ;-)

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
Simon Brooke > writes:

> The European Union is not a democracy.

I think some European politicians dream of it becoming one.

But the good old British Press and Westminster Idiots Club will
keep their veto on that ever happening in the forseeable future.

Now, how is it a democracy when so much power is shared between an
electric monk with a few tens of thousands of votes from a small
area of northeast England, and a couple of foreign media barons?
That's setting aside our own council of ministers (aka Sir Humphrey)
and institutionally corrupt judiciary.

--
Nick Kew

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:38:09 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>> You won't find many, if any, CoE buildings in Scotland. Even the
>> closest local affiliate to the CoE was formed and grew independantly
>> of the CoE.
>
>There are definately some CoE buildings. I remember seeing some.

I doubt that very much. You probably saw Episcopal Church buildings,
which is the Scottish arm of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The
English part is the Church of England.

>I've
>met one of the men who is responsible for the technical side of the
>Parliament building (as is) who was talking about what to do when it
>reverted back to Co? control.

The Parliament meets in the halls of the Church of Scotland. Despite
the name sounding like the Church of England the Church of Scotland
is not part of the Anglican Communion.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:05:03 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
> wrote this:-

>> You get high on the list by vigourously sticking
>> to the party line.
>
>I'd agree with you that list systems give far too much power to the
>party machine and are an extremely bad thing. However, that's no
>defence of 'first past the post', which is a scandalously undemocratic
>system. Yes, the list system is bad, but it ain't *that* bad.

The first past the post is a list system. The list for a particular
party contains one name and that is selected by the party. You get
the one place on the list by vigourously sticking to the party line.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Tony Raven]

Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I think some European politicians dream of it becoming one.
>
> But the good old British Press and Westminster Idiots Club will
> keep their veto on that ever happening in the forseeable future.
>
> Now, how is it a democracy when so much power is shared between an
> electric monk with a few tens of thousands of votes from a small
> area of northeast England, and a couple of foreign media barons?
> That's setting aside our own council of ministers (aka Sir Humphrey)
> and institutionally corrupt judiciary.

Why don't you emigrate to somewhere better then?

Tony

[Frobnitz]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
> > nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union of
> > nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an average
> > sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have an average
> > sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective voice at all in
> > the smaller one.
>
> Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?
>
> Tony ;-)
>
>

[Frobnitz]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >
> > If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
> > nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union of
> > nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an average
> > sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have an average
> > sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective voice at all in
> > the smaller one.
>
> Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?
>
uk.rec.cycling - and the majority of the posts represent this.
Occasionally, as with every community, a topic, off topic by the title,
excites interest and a large number of responses. This is good and healthy
because it shows it is a community with disparate interests, rather than a
bunch of monomaniacs

E

[Tony Raven]

Frobnitz wrote:
> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>
>>> If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
>>> nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union of
>>> nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an average
>>> sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have an average
>>> sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective voice at all in
>>> the smaller one.
>>
>> Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?
>>
> uk.rec.cycling - and the majority of the posts represent this.
> Occasionally, as with every community, a topic, off topic by the title,
> excites interest and a large number of responses. This is good and healthy
> because it shows it is a community with disparate interests, rather than a
> bunch of monomaniacs
>
> E

It was tongue in cheek using Simon's own words on an OT post of mine. As far
as I'm concerned urc is a bit like going down the pub with some cycling
mates - you talk about all sorts of topics including occassionally bikes.

Tony

[Gawnsoft]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:23:33 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> wrote (more or less):

>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:45:21 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>> > wrote (more or less):
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In ,
>>>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>>>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>>>> Holland
>>>>
>>>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
>>>> countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
>>>> km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>
>>>And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
>>
>> Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.
>>
>
>How do you work that out, then? I thought the Scottish and Irish
>(Republic) populations were about 5.1m and 3.9m respectively.

Reference book figures (as opp. to internet) of 3.0m and 5.1m

5.1m is 70% bigger than 3.0m

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Frobnitz
') wrote:

>
> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> >
>> > If we're going to be in a union of nations, lets be in a union of
>> > nations. But if we're in one union of nations within another union
>> > of nations, that's just too complex. Particularly when we're an
>> > average sized nation in the larger union and could potentially have
>> > an average sized voice, but so insignificant we've no effective
>> > voice at all in the smaller one.
>>
>> Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?
>>
> uk.rec.cycling - and the majority of the posts represent this.

Ignore.

A little while ago someone posted saying that people would not be able
to use their increased leisure time when the oil ran out because there
would not be oil to travel anywhere.

I wrote 'reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?' as a way of
suggesting that people could possibly cycle ('cycling') both as an
enjoyable form of leisure activity ('rec') and as a means of transport.
Unfortunately the joke seems to have been lost on most people, who
mistakenly thought I was commenting on how far off topic the thread had
drifted; thus Tony (above) is suggesting that I'm being hypocritical.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:35:04 GMT, Simon Brooke >
wrote in message >:

>A little while ago someone posted saying that people would not be able
>to use their increased leisure time when the oil ran out because there
>would not be oil to travel anywhere.
>I wrote 'reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?'

D'oh! I missed that entirely.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Nick Kew > typed:
> In article >,
> Simon Brooke > writes:
>
>> The European Union is not a democracy.
>
> I think some European politicians dream of it becoming one.
>
> But the good old British Press and Westminster Idiots Club will
> keep their veto on that ever happening in the forseeable future.
>
> Now, how is it a democracy when so much power is shared between an
> electric monk with a few tens of thousands of votes from a small

Never made that connection before. Better not let him stay up all night
watching westerns in a Cambridge college's porter's lodge. :)

> area of northeast England, and a couple of foreign media barons?
> That's setting aside our own council of ministers (aka Sir Humphrey)
> and institutionally corrupt judiciary.

Yerbut, they're not a hugely corrupt judiciary, and their main corruption
from my point of view is their inability to understand that people who kill
people with cars and carelessness are actually criminals.*

A

*notwithstanding the stupendously poor driving error I made this afternoon.
I'M AN IDIOT.

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Gawnsoft > typed:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:23:33 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:45:21 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>>> > wrote (more or less):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In ,
>>>>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>>>>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>>>>> Holland
>>>>>
>>>>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I
>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north
>>>>> EUian countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16
>>>>> million in 33000 km^2, making it neither small nor geographically
>>>>> similar to Scotland)
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>
>>>> And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
>>>
>>> Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.
>>>
>>
>> How do you work that out, then? I thought the Scottish and Irish
>> (Republic) populations were about 5.1m and 3.9m respectively.
>
> Reference book figures (as opp. to internet) of 3.0m and 5.1m

I understood the CIA World Factbook to be relatively authorative, and there
has been significant return of emigrants and immigration in Ireland over the
past 5 years that a 2003 figure may be a lot bigger than a late 1990s
figure. And given the house prices in Dublin, you'd have thought the
population had just doubled :)

A

[Daniel Barlow]

Simon Brooke > writes:

>> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
>>> Reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?

> I wrote 'reality check: what is the name of this newsgroup?' as a way of
> suggesting that people could possibly cycle ('cycling') both as an

I think Tony was attempting to remind us about the "uk" component of
the newsgroup name, not the "cycling" bit. At least, that's how I
read it.

If {Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall, wherever} were to become an
independent nation within the EU, I (as a person living in England)
would quite like it if the urc posters from said new nation(s) would
continue to post in this newsgroup. If we have to rename it
"en_EU.rec.cycling", or something, I could live with that.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Michael MacClancy]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:48:29 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:05:03 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
> > wrote this:-
>
>>> You get high on the list by vigourously sticking
>>> to the party line.
>>
>>I'd agree with you that list systems give far too much power to the
>>party machine and are an extremely bad thing. However, that's no
>>defence of 'first past the post', which is a scandalously undemocratic
>>system. Yes, the list system is bad, but it ain't *that* bad.
>
> The first past the post is a list system. The list for a particular
> party contains one name and that is selected by the party. You get
> the one place on the list by vigourously sticking to the party line.

The last sentence summarises the real problem with 'first past the post'.
Under FPTP when we elect our MPs we should really be electing our local
representative and not some party lackey who is going to bend under the
party whip on all occasions. The importance of the party in politics
should be greatly reduced.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He has never been known to use a word that might send a
reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Michael MacClancy]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:20:01 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:23:33 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:45:21 +0100, Gawnsoft wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:16:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>>> > wrote (more or less):
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:40:59 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In ,
>>>>> Simon Brooke > typed:
>>>>> <somewhat overgenerous snip>
>>>>>> Holland
>>>>>
>>>>> Considered to be fairly similar to calling the UK England, as I understand
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad to see you have such affinity with your neighbouring north EUian
>>>>> countries. (Also, the Netherlands has a population of 16 million in 33000
>>>>> km^2, making it neither small nor geographically similar to Scotland)
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>
>>>>And Sweden's population is 60% higher than Scotland's, too.
>>>
>>> Then again, Scotland has a population 70% bigger than Ireland's.
>>>
>>
>>How do you work that out, then? I thought the Scottish and Irish
>>(Republic) populations were about 5.1m and 3.9m respectively.
>
> Reference book figures (as opp. to internet) of 3.0m and 5.1m
>
> 5.1m is 70% bigger than 3.0m

There's your problem then - an old (or possibly just incorrect) reference
book and a rapidly growing population.

http://www.idaireland.com/facts/vitalstats.asp

"According to the Census undertaken in April 2002, Ireland's population is
3,917,203 persons, compared with 3,626,087 persons in April 1996,
representing an increase of 291,116 persons or 8% in six years. The rate of
population growth was the highest experienced since the 1970's. The
population of all four provinces increased between 1996 and 2002. Since the
Census was undertaken in 2002 Ireland's population has increased further to
3,978,900 persons."

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the
stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

[Nick Kew]

In article >,
Michael MacClancy > writes:

> The last sentence summarises the real problem with 'first past the post'.
> Under FPTP when we elect our MPs we should really be electing our local
> representative

How can you expect to elect a "local" representative when "local" is
not within commuting distance of Westminster?

Our present grossly-overcentralised system precludes representation
for English regions outside the southeast. We'd have more representation
under Brussels (which believes in and, by and large practices, local
accountability) than Westminster (which arrogates all real powers to itself).

--
Nick Kew