Should Greater Manchester follow Scotland's example and strive for independence? - Polidicks

[url]http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/should-greater-manchester-follow-scotlands-7750466[/url] Ridiculous headline aside its interesting. A group of guys are requesting greater control for local governments and less stuff "from the top" [quote]He said: “Those in Whitehall are hardly in a position to know what is best for the future of different parts of our country, however well-intentioned. “So enabling the leaders of these major urban areas to decide what is right for them, and with it, for them to carry the responsibility for those decisions, is crucial.” Last Friday Manchester-based think-tank CLES, in a report commissioned by the trade union Unison, called for councils to keep some of the income tax they raise locally, instead of giving it to the Chancellor – enabling them to plough it back into the local economy.[/quote] [quote]Westminster taxes and spends far too much of our cash from London, they argue. Manchester should keep its money and spend it where it is needed.[/quote] [quote]He will say Manchester must be allowed control of ALL its public spending – from welfare to education, health to social care.[/quote] Crazy as it sounds local government will generally know more about their constituency than central goverment in london and it would allow for the people in the area to be better represented, ie manchester is generally quite left wing and many people, myself included, feel the tories are taking manchester and the area down the wrong track. [quote=wikipedia]In terms of representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Greater Manchester is divided into 28 parliamentary constituencies – 18 borough constituencies and 10 county constituencies. Most of Greater Manchester is controlled by the Labour party, and is generally considered a Labour stronghold,[124][125] with only four constituencies (since the 2010 general election) belonging to the Liberal Democrats, and two constituencies to the Conservative party.[/quote] For those who don't want to read, the headline, taken from the article is sensationalist, the only thing this is suggesting is more power to local government in manchester. This probably won't matter to Americans but consider it as a preference to "bottom up" rather than "top down" politics.

Fuck it, let's go back to the feudal system! That way everyone can have the laws they want.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45959612]Fuck it, let's go back to the feudal system! That way everyone can have the laws they want.[/QUOTE] Feudalism is a "top down" system there the king orders the nobels and the nobels order the land owners and the land owners order their property/workers. Top down is precisely the opposite of what is being suggested here.

You're gonna have to fight us first.

Can't wait for there to be 50 nations on one single island.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;45959645]Can't wait for there to be 50 nations on one single island.[/QUOTE] United Kingdoms

I like this idea. But maybe we should save time and just all become independent from Westminster?

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if in the next few years England itself gets it's own parliament with Westminster being the parliament for the UK as a whole (or whatever is left of it). There was a vote on something similar to this a few years ago but it was only focused on the North East and from what I've heard it wasn't that well promoted at all (let alone what the benefits/negatives would be), needless to say it didn't happen and whenever the question of "why hasn't England got a parliament like Scotland and Wales" the answer is almost always "AH! Well, you see, we asked you if you wanted it, and you said no, so there!"

[QUOTE=Chrisordie;45959687]It honestly wouldn't surprise me if in the next few years England itself gets it's own parliament with Westminster being the parliament for the UK as a whole (or whatever is left of it). There was a vote on something similar to this a few years ago but it was only focused on the North East and from what I've heard it wasn't that well promoted at all (let alone what the benefits/negatives would be), needless to say it didn't happen and whenever the question of "why hasn't England got a parliament like Scotland and Wales" the answer is almost always "AH! Well, you see, we asked you if you wanted it, and you said no, so there!"[/QUOTE] My "uncle" is always going on about being English and saying Scottish and Welsh have more rights than us and saying our government care about them than us (english). He also votes ukip... I don't think england should have its own government but local councils should definately have more power instead of letting london decide everything.

I miss the Empire.

i live there and would gladly lay down my life for freedom long live the greater province of manchester

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;45960525]i live there and would gladly lay down my life for freedom long live the greater province of manchester[/QUOTE] Ever vigilant brother [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Greater_Manchester_County_Council_Arms.png[/t]

if manchester was a country then the UK's exports on music talent would be down the drain

Moving everything relevant to the South/London has caused big economical and social problems in the UK, now we're starting to feel repercussions of it.

United County's of England? Just doesn't have a good ring to it.

[QUOTE=Lium;45960345]I miss the Empire.[/QUOTE] We all do, lad. We all do.

All glory to the empire of manchestershire

Did you know that subtracting the votes of Manchester for every general election wouldn't have changed the outcome! Roll on independence!

They're absolutely right I think. People tend to forget there's a hell of a lot more of UK than London and it's annoying being permanently shafted for basically everything if you don't live there

I, too, think everyone should revert to Greek city states. EDIT: Although in all seriousness, the FPTP system in Britain always struck me as somewhat undemocratic and unrepresentative governments being elected.

Why not just have a bunch of countries making up one larger country? um

Gain independence, immediately invade the rest of England. Crown Elizabeth as queen, rename country England. Just have capital in Manchester.

Next time on Balkanizing the UK, Northumbria next?

I mean, we are one of the best cities in England. Independence may be pushing it a bit, all they really want is more control over budgets and funding

As somebody whose parents work in the public sector, most councillors are no better- and many are worse- than the head honcho MPs and politicians. They just don't have as much of a chance to screw things up. I honestly don't think fragmentation would make much difference, the government just needs to pay some fucking attention to everything away from a 30 mile radius of London.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45959654]United Kingdoms[/QUOTE] The borders of the actual Kingdom would only change if Scotland got rid of the monarchy, though.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45964874]The borders of the actual Kingdom would only change if Scotland got rid of the monarchy, though.[/QUOTE] Due to the Union of the Crowns in 1603, they have no choice in the matter, down to the Queen, which I doubt she would let happen. I mean she's got Australia, what more could she want?

At least parts of the UK are allowed to peacefully petition to leave :v:

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45959628]Feudalism is a "top down" system there the king orders the nobels and the nobels order the land owners and the land owners order their property/workers. Top down is precisely the opposite of what is being suggested here.[/QUOTE] Feudalism is actually a fairly decentralised system, wherein the people who are sworn in tend to generally be able to be very independent. I think you're confusing it with the absolute monarchy which was incredibly top down. [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45964874]The borders of the actual Kingdom would only change if Scotland got rid of the monarchy, though.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. The UK is one single country composed of multiple states. If the scotish want to become an independent nation, they can and will no longer be part of the UK. But the queen would still remain the head of state. Just as Australia isn't part of the UK.

[QUOTE=geogzm;45962531]All glory to the empire of manchestershire[/QUOTE] Manchestershershire is the proper terminology I belive [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Roll_Program;45962948]Why not just have a bunch of countries making up one larger country? um[/QUOTE] So a bunch of...small nation states represented in some form of federal government whereby the states have rights and the government has some rights over them in return the states have a sort of congress of representatives in this federal system Truly you Brits are on the cutting edge of government