http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 
  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and 
jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In 
the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would 
like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the 
fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."


I&R ~ GB replies
Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance 
would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the 
electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just 
being aware of the possibility makes politicians  "look before they 
leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The 
citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and 
bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform

In message , I&R ~ GB 
 writes
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/art
>icle6900028.ece  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are 
>both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of 
>all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most 
>voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, 
>stoking the fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."

But....but...where is the creature Guig screaming OT.... RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

"I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 
> "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and jury, 
> has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In the week 
> of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would like nothing 
> better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the fire with tables 
> and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
>
>
> I&R ~ GB replies
> Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance would, 
> with other advantages, bring increased respect for the electorate. A 
> referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just being aware of 
> the possibility makes politicians  "look before they leap". The 
> veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The citizens' 
> initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and bring new 
> ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
>
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> http://www.iniref.org/
> http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
> http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform
>
Yes and it would add yet another layer of complexity to the entire process.
I, personally, would rather see the way forward as each UK country having a 
parliament that would be far closer to the people and only a few top 
ministers of each running the common to all functions of the UK, like 
defence. After all the Scots law and English law are already different as is 
education and health but many functions really do need to be devolved to the 
UK countries. With a UK wide referendum the old problem of England's large 
population dictating to everyone else, as she does now, would only be 
increased - and that is not democratic.
The Scots think of themselves as Scot first and British second, as do the 
Welsh and Northern Irish, but the English have long been confused between 
English and British and most don't even know the difference.
It is not so long ago English sports supporters waved Union Jacks and sang 
the UK anthem as England's flag & anthem.
So too are such as UK wide TV and Radio shows such as  Dad's Army 
propagating the myths. Just look at Dad's Army signature tune -
"Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler, if you think Old England's 
done".
The myth that, "England stood alone against the might of Germany", was, and 
is, utter rot.
What stood against the Third Reich was the Entire British Empire and that 
included Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa, 
India, Canada and quite a few more.
This elitist English attitude has destroyed the Commonwealth and is now 
about to bring down the UK.
So sorry, but UK wide referenda is just another English ploy to dominate the 
rest of us.
No thanks. I'm for an independent England - go for it.

-- 

Auld Bob

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , I&R ~ GB 
>  writes
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/art
>> icle6900028.ece  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are 
>> both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of 
>> all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, 
>> most voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of 
>> Commons, stoking the fire with tables and chairs purchased from the 
>> John Lewis list."
> 
> But....but...where is the creature Guig screaming OT.... RH

The good Guig should scream against censorship: TimesOnline refused it 
seems to display the I&R – GB comment at its web site

ORIGINAL MESSAGE

"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 

  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and
jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In
the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would
like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the
fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."


I&R ~ GB replies
Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance
would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the
electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just
being aware of the possibility makes politicians  "look before they
leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The
citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and
bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform"

Robert Peffers wrote:
> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 
>> "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and jury, 
>> has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In the week 
>> of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would like nothing 
>> better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the fire with tables 
>> and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
>>
>>
>> I&R ~ GB replies
>> Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance would, 
>> with other advantages, bring increased respect for the electorate. A 
>> referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just being aware of 
>> the possibility makes politicians  "look before they leap". The 
>> veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The citizens' 
>> initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and bring new 
>> ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
>>
>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>> http://www.iniref.org/
>> http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
>> http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform
>>
> Yes and it would add yet another layer of complexity to the entire process.
> I, personally, would rather see the way forward as each UK country having a 
> parliament that would be far closer to the people and only a few top 
> ministers of each running the common to all functions of the UK, like 
> defence. After all the Scots law and English law are already different as is 
> education and health but many functions really do need to be devolved to the 
> UK countries. With a UK wide referendum the old problem of England's large 
> population dictating to everyone else, as she does now, would only be 
> increased - and that is not democratic.
> The Scots think of themselves as Scot first and British second, as do the 
> Welsh and Northern Irish, but the English have long been confused between 
> English and British and most don't even know the difference.
> It is not so long ago English sports supporters waved Union Jacks and sang 
> the UK anthem as England's flag & anthem.
> So too are such as UK wide TV and Radio shows such as  Dad's Army 
> propagating the myths. Just look at Dad's Army signature tune -
> "Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler, if you think Old England's 
> done".
> The myth that, "England stood alone against the might of Germany", was, and 
> is, utter rot.
> What stood against the Third Reich was the Entire British Empire and that 
> included Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa, 
> India, Canada and quite a few more.
> This elitist English attitude has destroyed the Commonwealth and is now 
> about to bring down the UK.
> So sorry, but UK wide referenda is just another English ploy to dominate the 
> rest of us.
> No thanks. I'm for an independent England - go for it.
> 

Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy 
would not hinder more devolution or independence.

Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions 
(between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?

The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger, 
citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities. 
That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and 
Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct 
democracy.

The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that 
is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided 
at Westminster? If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we 
could start campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might 
not gain majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be 
powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.

Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/

I&R ~ GB wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 
>  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and 
> jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In 
> the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would 
> like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the 
> fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
> 
> 
> I&R ~ GB replies
> Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance 
> would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the 
> electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just 
> being aware of the possibility makes politicians  "look before they 
> leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The 
> citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and 
> bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
> 
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> http://www.iniref.org/
> http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
> http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform
> 

Would that be the same court that was whipped into a pedo hysteria, and 
then whipped into another hysteria when all those child protection laws 
were passed?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
wrote:
> I&R ~ GB wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece 
>>  "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and 
>> jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In 
>> the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would 
>> like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the 
>> fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
>>
>>
>> I&R ~ GB replies
>> Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance 
>> would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the 
>> electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just 
>> being aware of the possibility makes politicians  "look before they 
>> leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. 
>> The citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate 
>> and bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
>>
>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>> http://www.iniref.org/
>> http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
>> http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform
>>
> 
> Would that be the same court that was whipped into a pedo hysteria, and 
> then whipped into another hysteria when all those child protection laws 
> were passed?
> 

You would best put that question to the TimesOnline journalist who 
described the UK public, in the context of anger about MPs and their 
expenses, as a "mob".

The Times apparently refused to publish our comment on this.

We at I&R ~ GB do not recommend that much attention should be given to 
"public opinion". In partial direct democracy the "court" is the 
electorate, the demos. It is the body which has in recent referenda 
abolished the death penalty, shown tolerance in matters of gender and 
drug addiction as well as ecological responsibility beyond that of 
governments.

I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/

"I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
snip.
>
> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy would 
> not hinder more devolution or independence.

Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the methods 
suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.

>
> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions (between 
> elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>
> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger, 
> citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities. 
> That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and 
> Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct 
> democracy.

Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & shoulders 
over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can raise matters with 
the house is but one of them.
>
> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that 
> is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided at 
> Westminster?

Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling the 
simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and they, 
(Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice from the 
moment that the SNP gained power.

Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond for 
quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would treat the 
Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day objected to an SNP 
representation on both TV and in discussions.

> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful 
> indirect effects of such initiatives.

Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting to 
force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?

>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/

It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy 
system. It may do you some good to check it out.
You will find the e-petitions system here -

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/

Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and archaic 
practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional closing doors 
or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and scraping and 
formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the chair call for a 
vote and the members press a button and the count is instant.

We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was already 
sorted before it had problems.

We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.

So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic 
system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?

We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we 
already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
-- 

Auld Bob

Robert Peffers wrote:
> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
> snip.
>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy would 
>> not hinder more devolution or independence.
> 
> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the methods 
> suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
> 
>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions (between 
>> elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger, 
>> citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities. 
>> That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and 
>> Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct 
>> democracy.
> 
> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & shoulders 
> over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can raise matters with 
> the house is but one of them.
>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that 
>> is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided at 
>> Westminster?
> 
> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling the 
> simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and they, 
> (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice from the 
> moment that the SNP gained power.
> 
> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond for 
> quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would treat the 
> Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day objected to an SNP 
> representation on both TV and in discussions.
> 
>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful 
>> indirect effects of such initiatives.
> 
> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting to 
> force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
> 
>> Wallace-Macpherson
>> I&R ~ GB
>> http://www.iniref.org/
> 
> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy 
> system. It may do you some good to check it out.
> You will find the e-petitions system here -
> 
> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
> 
> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and archaic 
> practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional closing doors 
> or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and scraping and 
> formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the chair call for a 
> vote and the members press a button and the count is instant.
> 
> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was already 
> sorted before it had problems.
> 
> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
> 
> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic 
> system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
> 
> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we 
> already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.

There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a 
bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties 
are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).

Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is -- 
to put it mildly -- breathtaking.

So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong" 
democracy:
(from http://www.iniref.org/about.html )

QUOTE
The term “citizens’ direct democracy” refers to forms of democratic 
decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens 
and which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole 
electorate. In this context "ballot" means the same as binding 
referendum or plebiscite. Thus citizens can identify, select and 
prioritise public issues, stipulate the wording of proposals and put 
proposals to the whole electorate of their state, city, town, village or 
other political unit. Examples of such procedures are:
-- the citizens’ law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
-- the veto referendum,
-- the constitutional referendum and
-- the recall-initiative.
UNQUOTE

What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of 
the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that 
if the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before 
the whole electorate in referendum.

In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle 
of direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put 
forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.

Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to 
compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed 
"representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to 
intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between 
elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the 
next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be 
little better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.

Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a 
sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak 
of and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.

Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/

I&R ~ GB  wrote in
news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 

> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>> 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylveste
>>>>> r/article6900028.ece 
>> snip.
>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy
>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>> 
>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the
>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>> 
>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have
>> now? 
>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for
>>> stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in
>>> all polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved
>>> parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in
>>> it). Partial direct democracy.
>> 
>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head &
>> shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can
>> raise matters with the house is but one of them.
>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as
>>> that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is
>>> decided at Westminster?
>> 
>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of
>> handling the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in
>> Holyrood and they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish
>> people's choice from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>> 
>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond
>> for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would
>> treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day
>> objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>> 
>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be
>>> powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.
>> 
>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before
>> attempting to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>> 
>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>> I&R ~ GB
>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>> 
>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament:
>> e-democracy system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>> 
>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>> 
>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and
>> archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional
>> closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing
>> and scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply
>> the chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the
>> count is instant. 
>> 
>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was
>> already sorted before it had problems.
>> 
>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>> 
>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden,
>> archaic system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>> 
>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as
>> we already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need
>> it. 
> 
> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and
> a bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political
> parties are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
> 
> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is
> -- to put it mildly -- breathtaking.

Where on earth did he say that? If anything, he's accusing *you*
of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.
> 
> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
> "strong" democracy:

Oh, we know what you mean - a majority tyrrany similar to
that which kept women out of the political system for
so long in Switzerland. Before any of your proposals
take place, there *must* be a constitution in place
guaranteeing minority rights.

"I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
>> snip.
>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy 
>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>
>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the 
>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>
>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions 
>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger, 
>>> citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities. 
>>> That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and 
>>> Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct 
>>> democracy.
>>
>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & shoulders 
>> over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can raise matters 
>> with the house is but one of them.
>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that 
>>> is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided 
>>> at Westminster?
>>
>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling 
>> the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and 
>> they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice 
>> from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>
>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond for 
>> quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would treat the 
>> Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day objected to an 
>> SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>
>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful 
>>> indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>
>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting to 
>> force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>
>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>> I&R ~ GB
>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>
>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy 
>> system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>
>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>
>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and archaic 
>> practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional closing 
>> doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and scraping 
>> and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the chair call 
>> for a vote and the members press a button and the count is instant.
>>
>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was already 
>> sorted before it had problems.
>>
>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>>
>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic 
>> system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>
>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we 
>> already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
>
> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a 
> bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties are 
> rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>
> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is -- 
> to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
>
> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong" 
> democracy:
> (from http://www.iniref.org/about.html )
>
> QUOTE
> The term “citizens’ direct democracy” refers to forms of democratic 
> decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens and 
> which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole electorate. In 
> this context "ballot" means the same as binding referendum or plebiscite. 
> Thus citizens can identify, select and prioritise public issues, stipulate 
> the wording of proposals and put proposals to the whole electorate of 
> their state, city, town, village or other political unit. Examples of such 
> procedures are:
> -- the citizens’ law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
> -- the veto referendum,
> -- the constitutional referendum and
> -- the recall-initiative.
> UNQUOTE
>
> What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of 
> the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that if 
> the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before the 
> whole electorate in referendum.
>
> In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle of 
> direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put 
> forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
>
> Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to 
> compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed 
> "representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to 
> intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between 
> elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the 
> next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be little 
> better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
>
> Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a 
> sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak of 
> and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/
>
>
>
I have been involved in the Scottish political scene since around 1945 and 
long ago came to the conclusion that the best way forward for Scotland is to 
become either totally independent from Westminster or, at very least, to 
form some more equitable form of government. It is very obvious that this 
cannot be achieved by the form of government you would have us adopt. The 
only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK 
country having their own parliament but with each country sending a small 
group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as 
defence. Through the years I have seen enough English attempts to browbeat 
everyone else and all of them with so many wrong facts that I know, without 
doubt, that they have little knowledge of real facts. Most, even sitting 
MPs, are devoid of factual information but full of myth and propaganda.

Let us just see how your own knowledge stacks up against real facts shall 
we?

What part of the UK has been the most consistent employment blackspot since 
WW1?

What part of the UK has had more people on benefits since the NHS was 
formed?

What proportion of North Sea revenues are credited to each home country as 
their earnings by HM Treasury?

What proportion of earnings from Registered head offices in London are 
credited as earnings by each UK country?

What is the purpose of the Barnett Formula?

What is the reason for only England being funded as the UK while all other 
countries have block grants?

Are block grants capped or uncapped?

Is the English UK funding capped or uncapped?

Does England subsidise Scotland and if so by how much?

What are the official languages of Scotland?

So let's see how you do on that little lot.


-- 

Auld Bob

soupdragon wrote:
> I&R ~ GB  wrote in
> news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 
> 
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylveste
>>>>>> r/article6900028.ece 
>>> snip.
>>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy
>>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the
>>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>>
>>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
>>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have
>>> now? 
>>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for
>>>> stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in
>>>> all polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved
>>>> parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in
>>>> it). Partial direct democracy.
>>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head &
>>> shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can
>>> raise matters with the house is but one of them.
>>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as
>>>> that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is
>>>> decided at Westminster?
>>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of
>>> handling the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in
>>> Holyrood and they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish
>>> people's choice from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>>
>>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond
>>> for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would
>>> treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day
>>> objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>>
>>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be
>>>> powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before
>>> attempting to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>>
>>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament:
>>> e-democracy system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>>
>>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>>
>>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and
>>> archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional
>>> closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing
>>> and scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply
>>> the chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the
>>> count is instant. 
>>>
>>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was
>>> already sorted before it had problems.
>>>
>>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>>>
>>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden,
>>> archaic system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>>
>>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as
>>> we already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need
>>> it. 
>> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and
>> a bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political
>> parties are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>>
>> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is
>> -- to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
> 
> Where on earth did he say that? If anything, he's accusing *you*
> of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.
>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
>> "strong" democracy:
> 
> Oh, we know what you mean - a majority tyrrany similar to
> that which kept women out of the political system for
> so long in Switzerland. Before any of your proposals
> take place, there *must* be a constitution in place
> guaranteeing minority rights.

You say there must be constitution in place (imposed? by whom? by which 
authority?) before there can be democracy.

Making a state constitution requires the participation of the people. It 
is accepted in lands across the planet that the final decision must be 
in plebiscite, binding referendum. So direct democracy must pre-exist 
constitution (or change of such). Genuine, creative, broad public 
participation is sine qua non. How do you think this apparent dilemma 
can be solved, Soupy?

Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/

"soupdragon"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9CB9D534515C4souphotmailcom@62.141.42.83...
> I&R ~ GB  wrote in
> news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message
>>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylveste
>>>>>> r/article6900028.ece
>>> snip.
>>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy
>>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>>
>>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the
>>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>>
>>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
>>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of
>>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have
>>> now?
>>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for
>>>> stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in
>>>> all polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved
>>>> parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in
>>>> it). Partial direct democracy.
>>>
>>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head &
>>> shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can
>>> raise matters with the house is but one of them.
>>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as
>>>> that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is
>>>> decided at Westminster?
>>>
>>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of
>>> handling the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in
>>> Holyrood and they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish
>>> people's choice from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>>
>>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond
>>> for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would
>>> treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day
>>> objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>>
>>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start
>>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain
>>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be
>>>> powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>>
>>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before
>>> attempting to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>>
>>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>
>>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament:
>>> e-democracy system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>>
>>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>>
>>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and
>>> archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional
>>> closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing
>>> and scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply
>>> the chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the
>>> count is instant.
>>>
>>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was
>>> already sorted before it had problems.
>>>
>>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>>>
>>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden,
>>> archaic system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>>
>>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as
>>> we already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need
>>> it.
>>
>> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and
>> a bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political
>> parties are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>>
>> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is
>> -- to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
>
> Where on earth did he say that? If anything, he's accusing *you*
> of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.
**************************
You are right - I didn't say that but neither did I accuse him of ignorance.
What I did say was that the average person is ignorant of much of the facts 
about how the four countries that make up the UK are funded, how they are 
goverend and what they contribute to the UK economy. Thast also applies to 
many of those who actually sit in the House of Commons and the house of 
Lords. It is thus madness to ever contemplate putting the power of running 
the country into such hands.

Want to test this diagnoses?
Ask some people to answer this multi-question.

(a) What is the Barnett Formula?
(b) Why is it used?
(c) What does it achive?
(d) How many members of the public could answer this four part question?

***********************

>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
>> "strong" democracy:
>
> Oh, we know what you mean - a majority tyrrany similar to
> that which kept women out of the political system for
> so long in Switzerland. Before any of your proposals
> take place, there *must* be a constitution in place
> guaranteeing minority rights.

Robert Peffers wrote:
> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
> news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
>>> snip.
>>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy 
>>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the 
>>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>>
>>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions 
>>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger, 
>>>> citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities. 
>>>> That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and 
>>>> Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct 
>>>> democracy.
>>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & shoulders 
>>> over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can raise matters 
>>> with the house is but one of them.
>>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that 
>>>> is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided 
>>>> at Westminster?
>>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling 
>>> the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and 
>>> they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice 
>>> from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>>
>>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond for 
>>> quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would treat the 
>>> Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day objected to an 
>>> SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>>
>>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful 
>>>> indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting to 
>>> force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>>
>>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy 
>>> system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>>
>>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>>
>>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and archaic 
>>> practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional closing 
>>> doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and scraping 
>>> and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the chair call 
>>> for a vote and the members press a button and the count is instant.
>>>
>>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was already 
>>> sorted before it had problems.
>>>
>>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>>>
>>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic 
>>> system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>>
>>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we 
>>> already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
>> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a 
>> bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties are 
>> rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>>
>> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is -- 
>> to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
>>
>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong" 
>> democracy:
>> (from http://www.iniref.org/about.html )
>>
>> QUOTE
>> The term “citizens’ direct democracy” refers to forms of democratic 
>> decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens and 
>> which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole electorate. In 
>> this context "ballot" means the same as binding referendum or plebiscite. 
>> Thus citizens can identify, select and prioritise public issues, stipulate 
>> the wording of proposals and put proposals to the whole electorate of 
>> their state, city, town, village or other political unit. Examples of such 
>> procedures are:
>> -- the citizens’ law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
>> -- the veto referendum,
>> -- the constitutional referendum and
>> -- the recall-initiative.
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of 
>> the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that if 
>> the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before the 
>> whole electorate in referendum.
>>
>> In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle of 
>> direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put 
>> forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
>>
>> Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to 
>> compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed 
>> "representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to 
>> intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between 
>> elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the 
>> next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be little 
>> better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
>>
>> Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a 
>> sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak of 
>> and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
>>
>> Wallace-Macpherson
>> I&R ~ GB
>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>
>>
>>
> I have been involved in the Scottish political scene since around 1945 and 
> long ago came to the conclusion that the best way forward for Scotland is to 
> become either totally independent from Westminster or, at very least, to 
> form some more equitable form of government. It is very obvious that this 
> cannot be achieved by the form of government you would have us adopt. The 
> only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK 
> country having their own parliament but with each country sending a small 
> group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as 
> defence. Through the years I have seen enough English attempts to browbeat 
> everyone else and all of them with so many wrong facts that I know, without 
> doubt, that they have little knowledge of real facts. Most, even sitting 
> MPs, are devoid of factual information but full of myth and propaganda.
> 
> Let us just see how your own knowledge stacks up against real facts shall 
> we?
> 
> What part of the UK has been the most consistent employment blackspot since 
> WW1?
> 
> What part of the UK has had more people on benefits since the NHS was 
> formed?
> 
> What proportion of North Sea revenues are credited to each home country as 
> their earnings by HM Treasury?
> 
> What proportion of earnings from Registered head offices in London are 
> credited as earnings by each UK country?
> 
> What is the purpose of the Barnett Formula?
> 
> What is the reason for only England being funded as the UK while all other 
> countries have block grants?
> 
> Are block grants capped or uncapped?
> 
> Is the English UK funding capped or uncapped?
> 
> Does England subsidise Scotland and if so by how much?
> 
> What are the official languages of Scotland?
> 
> So let's see how you do on that little lot.
> 
> 
You write "The
 > only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK
 > country having their own parliament but with each country sending a 
small
 > group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as
 > defence. "

The citizen-led partial direct democracy which we propose is entirely 
compatible with this formula.

The citizens' initiative and veto referendum can address all fields of 
politics so some of the topics which you list in your "exam" above could 
become topics of citizen-law-proposals.

Whether Scotland takes more independence from UK or not, the direct 
democracy tools which we list above would serve to enhance quality of 
governance, participation and representation.

Regards,
I&R ~ GB

http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform

"I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
news:7lg70uF3bg4vfU1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>> news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
>>>> snip.
>>>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy 
>>>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>>>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the 
>>>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>>>
>>>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions 
>>>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>>>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>>>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>>>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for 
>>>>> stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all 
>>>>> polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved 
>>>>> parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). 
>>>>> Partial direct democracy.
>>>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & 
>>>> shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can 
>>>> raise matters with the house is but one of them.
>>>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as 
>>>>> that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is 
>>>>> decided at Westminster?
>>>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling 
>>>> the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and 
>>>> they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice 
>>>> from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>>>
>>>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond 
>>>> for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would 
>>>> treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day 
>>>> objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>>>
>>>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain 
>>>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful 
>>>>> indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting 
>>>> to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>>>
>>>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy 
>>>> system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>>>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>>>
>>>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and 
>>>> archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional 
>>>> closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and 
>>>> scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the 
>>>> chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the count is 
>>>> instant.
>>>>
>>>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was 
>>>> already sorted before it had problems.
>>>>
>>>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
>>>>
>>>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic 
>>>> system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>>>
>>>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we 
>>>> already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
>>> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a 
>>> bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties 
>>> are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>>>
>>> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is -- 
>>> to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
>>>
>>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong" 
>>> democracy:
>>> (from http://www.iniref.org/about.html )
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>> The term “citizens’ direct democracy” refers to forms of democratic 
>>> decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens 
>>> and which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole 
>>> electorate. In this context "ballot" means the same as binding 
>>> referendum or plebiscite. Thus citizens can identify, select and 
>>> prioritise public issues, stipulate the wording of proposals and put 
>>> proposals to the whole electorate of their state, city, town, village or 
>>> other political unit. Examples of such procedures are:
>>> -- the citizens’ law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
>>> -- the veto referendum,
>>> -- the constitutional referendum and
>>> -- the recall-initiative.
>>> UNQUOTE
>>>
>>> What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of 
>>> the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that 
>>> if the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before 
>>> the whole electorate in referendum.
>>>
>>> In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle 
>>> of direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put 
>>> forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
>>>
>>> Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to 
>>> compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed 
>>> "representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to 
>>> intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between 
>>> elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the 
>>> next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be 
>>> little better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
>>>
>>> Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a 
>>> sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak 
>>> of and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
>>>
>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>> I&R ~ GB
>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I have been involved in the Scottish political scene since around 1945 
>> and long ago came to the conclusion that the best way forward for 
>> Scotland is to become either totally independent from Westminster or, at 
>> very least, to form some more equitable form of government. It is very 
>> obvious that this cannot be achieved by the form of government you would 
>> have us adopt. The only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal 
>> system with each UK country having their own parliament but with each 
>> country sending a small group of ministers to deal with the very few 
>> matters they share such as defence. Through the years I have seen enough 
>> English attempts to browbeat everyone else and all of them with so many 
>> wrong facts that I know, without doubt, that they have little knowledge 
>> of real facts. Most, even sitting MPs, are devoid of factual information 
>> but full of myth and propaganda.
>>
>> Let us just see how your own knowledge stacks up against real facts shall 
>> we?
>>
>> What part of the UK has been the most consistent employment blackspot 
>> since WW1?
>>
>> What part of the UK has had more people on benefits since the NHS was 
>> formed?
>>
>> What proportion of North Sea revenues are credited to each home country 
>> as their earnings by HM Treasury?
>>
>> What proportion of earnings from Registered head offices in London are 
>> credited as earnings by each UK country?
>>
>> What is the purpose of the Barnett Formula?
>>
>> What is the reason for only England being funded as the UK while all 
>> other countries have block grants?
>>
>> Are block grants capped or uncapped?
>>
>> Is the English UK funding capped or uncapped?
>>
>> Does England subsidise Scotland and if so by how much?
>>
>> What are the official languages of Scotland?
>>
>> So let's see how you do on that little lot.
>>
>>
> You write "The
> > only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK
> > country having their own parliament but with each country sending a
> small
> > group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as
> > defence. "
>
> The citizen-led partial direct democracy which we propose is entirely 
> compatible with this formula.
>
> The citizens' initiative and veto referendum can address all fields of 
> politics so some of the topics which you list in your "exam" above could 
> become topics of citizen-law-proposals.
>
> Whether Scotland takes more independence from UK or not, the direct 
> democracy tools which we list above would serve to enhance quality of 
> governance, participation and representation.
>
> Regards,
> I&R ~ GB
>
> http://www.iniref.org/
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb  sign up for reform
>
>
>
No it isn't. As long as there are 10 or 11 English people to every one Scot 
and as long as there are 533 English MPs, 59 Scots MPs, 40 Welsh MPs and 18 
NI MPs there can be no real democracy in the UK.
Even if all others were to join against the English MPs they could not 
outvote them. So England always gets her own way. Add to that the fact that 
England is funded as the UK and the system is stacked in England's favour.
At the moment Westminster has cheated Scotland out of £1020 million. They 
paid a supplement for increased prison places to the rest but none to 
Scotland that cost Scotland £120 million. Westminster paid out Council tax 
rebate to the rest of the UK but nothing to Scotland which cost Scotland 
£400 Million and they fiddled the Barnet Formula when cutting the block 
grants  and that cost the Scottish parliament £500 Million.
Nothing but independence and, perhaps, a federal system could cure that.
-- 

Auld Bob

I&R ~ GB  wrote in news:7lededF3ckgkkU1@mid.uni-
berlin.de:

> soupdragon wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB  wrote in
>> news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: 
>> 
>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>>> "I&R ~ GB"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:7lboc5F3cs600U1@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylveste
>>>>>>> r/article6900028.ece 
>>>> snip.
>>>>> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger 
democracy
>>>>> would not hinder more devolution or independence.
>>>> Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
>>>> I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the
>>>> methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>>>>
>>>>> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
>>>>> (between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
>>>> By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of 
>>>> political issues), public be thought any better than what we have
>>>> now? 
>>>>> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for
>>>>> stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in
>>>>> all polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved
>>>>> parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in
>>>>> it). Partial direct democracy.
>>>> Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head &
>>>> shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can
>>>> raise matters with the house is but one of them.
>>>>> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long 
as
>>>>> that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what 
is
>>>>> decided at Westminster?
>>>> Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of
>>>> handling the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in
>>>> Holyrood and they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish
>>>> people's choice from the moment that the SNP gained power.
>>>>
>>>> Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex 
Salmond
>>>> for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would
>>>> treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day
>>>> objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
>>>>
>>>>> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start 
>>>>> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not 
gain 
>>>>> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be
>>>>> powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.
>>>> Why do you not find out just what we already do have before
>>>> attempting to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>>>>
>>>>> Wallace-Macpherson
>>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>>> http://www.iniref.org/
>>>> It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament:
>>>> e-democracy system. It may do you some good to check it out.
>>>> You will find the e-petitions system here -
>>>>
>>>> http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and
>>>> archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no 
traditional
>>>> closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing
>>>> and scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite 
simply
>>>> the chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the
>>>> count is instant. 
>>>>
>>>> We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was
>>>> already sorted before it had problems.
>>>>
>>>> We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the 
house.
>>>>
>>>> So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden,
>>>> archaic system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
>>>>
>>>> We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as
>>>> we already do have access directly to our own parliament when we 
need
>>>> it. 
>>> There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions 
and
>>> a bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political
>>> parties are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
>>>
>>> Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues 
is
>>> -- to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
>> 
>> Where on earth did he say that? If anything, he's accusing *you*
>> of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.

No comment, then?

>>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
>>> "strong" democracy:
>> 
>> Oh, we know what you mean - a majority tyrrany similar to
>> that which kept women out of the political system for
>> so long in Switzerland. Before any of your proposals
>> take place, there *must* be a constitution in place
>> guaranteeing minority rights.
> 
> You say there must be constitution in place (imposed? by whom? by 
which 
> authority?) before there can be democracy.

Do you ever read what people write before commenting? I'm commenting
on *your* form of democracy, where we all run off to the polls and
vote to deny rights to whoever happens to be the bad guy of the
month.