SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
England v Rest Of The UK Fees
Author Message
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #1
07-03-2011 09:28 AM

Can someone please enlighten me as to why the rest of the UK have free uni fes, free elderly care, free prescriptions, free dental care, free hospital car parking yet in England we pay for all these ?

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #2
07-03-2011 11:59 AM

Because England has not yet got its own government and Parliament, so the UK government can make English people pay for the profligacy of our Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish friends.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #3
07-03-2011 12:19 PM

Because they get a much biggest settlement per person than in England.

I agree , for instance , Scotland should get a larger settlement to cover the rural costs of The Highlands and Islands , but the Government has gone too far.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #4
07-03-2011 01:54 PM

Thanks - yet is this not unfair as they all go on about home rule and having their own parliments, so why should we [ taxpayers in england ] pay for them to have have things free ?

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #5
07-03-2011 02:13 PM

I agree. As I say if we are a United Kingdom then it is right that sparsely populated rural areas should receive a larger subsidy , but the additional figure they get is now well over the top.

Is it right that tuition fees , prescriptions etc are free in Scotland if the only way they can do this is because they get a much larger settlement per person.

Also surely it is right that English MP's only vote on matters which are devolved in the other regions/countries. The West Lothian question.

This should not be a problem with a Conservative or Lib/ Con Coalition in power as would always have a majority in England. However a Labour Government with say majority under 30 , 35 would probably not have a majority in England.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #6
09-03-2011 10:20 PM

I think for once in history after years of oppression the outer regions of the UK are getting their own back and now England is experiencing the various injustices and inequalities that these countries have experienced in past centuries. Have we for instance all forgotten the Britoil affair ( Denis Thatcher etc) which pillaged the Scottish oilfields and returned little of their spoils to the Scottish coffers? Then there's all that business with the Duke of Argyll, the Clearances instigated by the English landlords, and many more societal and economic crimes.

''England'' has gained considerably from its past exploitation of its more peripheral peoples and Ireland. As for Northern Ireland, no one asked you lot to invade us and occupy our territory. You decided to do that all on your own. But right now I'm occupying yours, taking up space on your buses, and loving every minute.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #7
10-03-2011 09:13 AM

Roz
I do not appreciate your attitude in refering to to you and us and you presumably being from ethnic Irish origin. In that case one could say no one asked you and your aggressive Buggie to come here. You could of course return to the woes of Southern Ireland.

As for N Ireland the so called invaders are the decendents of mainly Scottish emigrants ( not English ) . Authorised by King James the 6th.

I am really puzzled by your mention of Britoil.

Regarding Highland Clearances they were mainly the responsibility of Scottish Landlords. Also I would have thought most of their decendents in Canada , USA and Australia are happier where they are now.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #8
10-03-2011 07:40 PM

Sorry, I thought this was the 'you and us' thread. Must have made a mistake. One of many no doubt.

The Scottish landlords were given a lot of their power, or allowed to keep what they had, by the English in return for keeping the Scots divided and ruled.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #9
10-03-2011 07:53 PM

Yoy seem to be an expert on Scottish History. I dispute your comments but you will not be surprised , I guess.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #10
11-03-2011 10:56 AM

Roz - all I did was ask the question, in no way did I start it as us/you thread.

Indeed some of your facts are correct, yet how does things done in the past mean that now people in England suffer and there are many Irish, Scots, Welsh who live here

If you love Ireland as much as you seem to, then why did you ever leave and come to a Country that you now seem to despise ?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #11
11-03-2011 01:42 PM

Scotland after devolution took a more equitous view to it's society and in it's expenditure. However I doubt if many of those good things will be maintained much longer due to cost.

Scotland is more scarcely populated outside the central belt which does make services more costly to provide. CalMac the ferry company is still I believe publicly financed in order to import goods for the islanders. I don't see how that can be avoided.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #12
11-03-2011 02:13 PM

Roz
I did admit that they should get more money to cover the extra costs of the H and Id's , but the gap has not much too large.

They also get projects that are put there for political reasons , like the two new aircraft carriers. Maybe we needed one but not even sure about that. The old Government put so many stipulations in the contract to make sure it would not really be possible to cancel.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #13
11-03-2011 04:28 PM

As an Englishman, I have a lot of sympathy for Roz's point of view. Without wanting to argue the rights and wrongs of particular historical events, I think she is right to say that the English treated Ireland shamefully for nine hundred years and I can understand her bitterness. The Welsh too have suffered from English imperialism and racism - the suppression of their language in the education system in the nineteenth century was criminal - but nothing like as badly. As regards the Scots, I don't think things are quite so clear cut.

I believe that the Irish (north and south), the Welsh and the Scots should be allowed complete self-determination. If they want to be independent countries, fine; in that case, perhaps we the English should pay them appropriate reparations to reflect the extent to which we have exploited them over the centuries.

But I think the English too should be allowed self-determination. England was an independent unitary state for nearly as long as Scotland and a lot longer than Wales. (Ireland is more complicated, I think). I believe that we are a nation, and should be allowed to govern ourselves.

But I hope we shall always have very close and friendly relationship with our neighbours in these islands, with whom we share so much history and culture, and continue to welcome settlers like Roz who have so much to offer. Indeed, I think our frontiers should be as open as possible to all comers. I really resent the way 'English' has come to be used in a racial sense. In my view there is an English nation, but I do not believe there is an English race.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #14
12-03-2011 05:18 PM

You say there is an English nation but not an English race. Exactly the same could be levelled at Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Ireland.

England is mixture of Britons , Germanics , Danes and Normans plus many others.
Scotland is Picts , Britons , Scot's ( who were Irish ) , Germanics ( Edinborough and the Lowlands settled by Angles ) and Norwegians and Normans.

Ireland has Irish ( Basically Britons ) Germanics , Normans ( Fitz etc ) and Norwegian.

All parts of these islands are a complete mixture and surely that is good.

When it comes to people comparing the British Empire to the English Empire this is ridiculus.
Per head the Scots contributed far more to The Empire than the other 3.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #15
13-03-2011 02:42 PM

I agree with you, Brian, that it makes no more sense to talk of Scottish, Welsh or Irish (or indeed of any other ) 'races' than of an English one. ( I wondered however whether you are right to call the Irish 'basically Britons'. I suppose many of them may have arrived in Ireland from Europe via Britain in prehistoric times, but does that make them 'Britons'?)

I suppose there was an 'English Empire' - perhaps several separate empires - before England and Scotland joined to become 'Great Britain' in 1707. As well as Ireland (our first overseas possession?) and Wales, it comprised, at one time, parts of France and, later, the North American colonies and various possessions in India and the Caribbean.

As you say, Scots played a major role in the British Empire of the eighteenth century and later. Indeed, some historians claim that it was the Empire more than anything else which created the 'British' national identity. That is one reason why, as an anti-imperialist, I feel uncomfortable with the notion of 'Britishness' and would rather think of myself as English. (I really hate being called a 'Brit', and sometimes fantasize about the word eventually becoming as politically incorrect as 'Paki' and 'Chinaman.')

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #16
13-03-2011 03:11 PM

Robin I broadly agree with you.

My comment re the Irish and British being the same stock is refering to pre AD 500.

I agree English Empire in France prior to Union. Although the Union was not to 1707 , from good King James in 1603 in many ways defacts union. He indeed responsible for major British settlements in Ireland.

Also not wishing to be pedantic but some may say the earliest invasions/settlements of Ireland were conducted whilst England under Norman/early Plantagenent yoke , not sure they qualify as English invasions.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #17
13-03-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:
[...] the earliest invasions/settlements of Ireland were conducted whilst England under Norman/early Plantagenent yoke , not sure they qualify as English invasions


Good point, Brian. I doubt whether it makes much sense to talk about 'imperialism' or 'empires' (except the Holy Roman one, perhaps) in feudal Europe. But I'm afraid my historical knowledge is now running up against the buffers!

Anyway, from the accession of John in 1199, the King of England was 'Lord' and (from 1541) 'King' of Ireland.

I have checked the issue about the origin of the Irish Celts. As I suspected there appears to have been an early (i.e. first millenium BCE) division between the Q-Celts (Gaels, 'Scots') who established themselves in Ireland and later invaded what is now Scotland, and the P-Celts ('Ancient Britons') who settled in Britain and spoke a precursor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Irish legend suggests that the Gaels originally came from Spain rather from Britain.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields