Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

But, but, but ... protocol. ;___;

[Owlbread]

But, but, but ... protocol. ;___;

Protocol is for saps and monarchists. Be a rebel.

[palsch]

Owlbread, I just want to try to put the US Senate and 17th Amendment in a Scottish/UK context. Feel free to ignore this everyone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Currently there are certain peerages reserved to Scotland in the House of Lords. Only 16, but they are there. They represent Scottish interests in the upper house.

Imagine if by some miracle a new government actually passes a reform bill that makes the Lords directly elected. They want to maintain the Scottish representation, so make the current Scottish seats directly elected by the Scottish population.

Would Scotland lose any autonomy under that change? I don't see how. OK, so it's slightly different in that the current Lords aren't exactly appointed by the Scottish Parliament, but even if they were I still think that their being elected by the Scottish population would be either an increase or retention of the same level of state autonomy as currently exists.

Of course, right now Scottish independence looks more likely that Lords reform, so it's pretty well bunk.

As for the monarchy I'm a bit of a republican (small r, always small r) in this sense. It doesn't make sense to get rid of the monarchy right now, but as an ideal state to work towards, and the natural result of independently good reforms, republicism is where I end up. And it's physically impossible to dislike Lizzy. That's science.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, I just want to try to put the US Senate and 17th Amendment in a Scottish/UK context. Feel free to ignore this everyone.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Currently there are certain peerages reserved to Scotland in the House of Lords. Only 16, but they are there. They represent Scottish interests in the upper house.

Imagine if by some miracle a new government actually passes a reform bill that makes the Lords directly elected. They want to maintain the Scottish representation, so make the current Scottish seats directly elected by the Scottish population.

Would Scotland lose any autonomy under that change? I don't see how. OK, so it's slightly different in that the current Lords aren't exactly appointed by the Scottish Parliament, but even if they were I still think that their being elected by the Scottish population would be either an increase or retention of the same level of state autonomy as currently exists.

Of course, right now Scottish independence looks more likely that Lords reform, so it's pretty well bunk.

As for the monarchy I'm a bit of a republican (small r, always small r) in this sense. It doesn't make sense to get rid of the monarchy right now, but as an ideal state to work towards, and the natural result of independently good reforms, republicism is where I end up. And it's physically impossible to dislike Lizzy. That's science.

Thank you very much for the explanation of the senate. I understand now.

I agree that we should be slowly working towards a well-structured republic over the next century. I don't see there as being any rush to get rid of the Queen either, considering we've been able to implement quite drastic changes to the very fabric of the UK over the last 10 years despite being under her rule. It would be foolish to depose the Queen next year for instance and cause such a drastic change in government that would be widely unpopular with the people and... well, I don't really know what would happen.

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

Actually, the English were 100 years ahead of you at one point, but then they kind of... messed it up a bit, and dragged us in as well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

[Owlbread]

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

We're not England's slaves, we're just... I don't know. It's like England doesn't exist anymore, it's just... Britain, a territory governed by politicians from all over the UK.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Be a rebel.

236 years ahead of you.

And I am very jealous.

Don't worry, in two years you'll have your chance to *snicker* vote on whether or not you want to be England's slaves any longer.

We're not England's slaves, we're just... I don't know. It's like England doesn't exist anymore, it's just... Britain, a territory governed by politicians from all over the UK.

You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be over here hanging out in my sovereign nation. Perhaps I'll invite the Canadians and Mexicans from their sovereign nations and we'll have one big North American Sovereign Nation party. But not Cuba. Cuba is not invited to the NASN.

[Owlbread]

You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be over here hanging out in my sovereign nation. Perhaps I'll invite the Canadians and Mexicans from their sovereign nations and we'll have one big North American Sovereign Nation party. But not Cuba. Cuba is not invited to the NASN.

No, no really. I'm super serious, the mistake is believing that we are slaves to England. The English have nothing - they don't even have a parliament. We are slaves to the British state... or someone else. I can't think.

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union. They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union.

NAU? No. It's just a party. And Cuba is not invited. Commie bastards. If they aren't North American what are they? It's the closest continent to them by far.

They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

Of the 779 people sent to Guantanamo Bay, 600 have been released, 8 have died, and 167 are still there. It won't be around much longer.

As for torture, water-boarding is thankfully not legal anymore.

[Owlbread]

Also, Cuba isn't really north american is it? They wouldn't want to join some kind of crazy ass north american union.

NAU? No. It's just a party. And Cuba is not invited. Commie bastards. If they aren't North American what are they? It's the closest continent to them by far.

They're too busy accomodating your state-sponsored torturers and POW camps.

Of the 779 people sent to Guantanamo Bay, 600 have been released, 8 have died, and 167 are still there. It won't be around much longer.

As for torture, water-boarding is thankfully not legal anymore.

It's quite amazing that anyone would try to claim that water boarding wasn't torture in the first place. But that's pretty damned good about Guantanamo being so close to shutting down though. I take it that's going to be a feather in Obama's cap?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That was one of the things he said he was going to do, so I certainly hope Obama deals with it. Presidents tend to be more reckless in their second terms since they don't have to worry about re-election, so hopefully he'll go for it like he said he was going to.

It's actually mostly an administrative thing right now. About half of the people still in Guantanamo have already been cleared for release but the military is reluctant to actually let them go.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Cuba doesn't support Guantanimo Bay. They haven't cashed our checks for it, and have said we need to get off their land at every turn. It's just very complicated.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They also can't do much of anything about it. If they attack we'll attack back, and without the USSR to watch their back....

[lordcooper]

Err, you guys do know that Her Majesty died fifteen years ago, right?

We have a long-standing tradition of taxidermy in the UK.