PDA

View Full Version : Should England have a foreign Prime Minister?


G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 18:08
Everybody knows that the prime candidate to take over as Prime Minister is a SCOT! He makes no secret of it, and, indeed, has declared that he is PROUD to be a Scot. Apart from the West Lothian question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question there is concern about devolving power into the hands of an alien.
Would there be as much concern expressed were the candidate be from Wales (also devolved), or, God forbid, from the Black Country?

Discuss.



However, before you get TOO involved, bear in mind that Tony Blair was born in . . .






















Edinburgh!
We should have been told!

DG101
25th Sep 2006, 18:17
GB would not be the first "foreign" PM of GB. Two names spring to mind - Lloyd George was Welsh, and wasn't Winnie a Merican

Clarence Oveur
25th Sep 2006, 18:20
GB would not be the first "foreign" PM of GB. Two names spring to mind - Lloyd George was Welsh, and wasn't Winnie a Merican
Hmmm...

Ever wondered about asking the question the other way around G-CPTN?

ormus55
25th Sep 2006, 18:24
Winston's mother was Lady Randolph Churchill (nee Jennie Jerome), daughter of American millionaire Leneord Jerome.

Winstons real name was spencer-churchill, a long established english family, ie the dukes of marlborough.

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 18:24
Ever wondered about asking the question the other way around G-CPTN?
Your point evades me, Clarence, unless you mean having an ENGLISHMAN in charge of the Scottish Parliament?

Davaar
25th Sep 2006, 18:41
What's the beef? Your royal family is German.

When King George V changed the family name to Windsor, the Kaiser wondered if Berlin should put on a performance of Shakespeare's "The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

Mountbatten was Battenberg until the convenience of a First Sea Lord (his home was in Germany, and he spoke with a German accent) not so long ago made a change desirable.

Richard Taylor
25th Sep 2006, 18:46
Tony Bliar may have been born in Auld Reekie but doesn't he consider himself English anyway?

Pan Pan Splash
25th Sep 2006, 18:48
to quote one Ewan McGregor in Trainspotting..

"The English can't help it, they're just w:mad: rs, we on the other hand allow ourselves to be colonised by w:mad: rs" etc etc etc..

The Clans always knew the time would come when Scotland would unleash centuries of fury on the English.. they just never figured that the secret weapon of revenge would be the "Tone and Gord show"..

They don't like it up them:ok:

PPS Bored fartless in Doha during Ramadan....:ugh: :zzz: :*

None of the above
25th Sep 2006, 18:58
The Black Adder -- Episode 2 Born to Be King

McAngus: Hey! I hope life doesn't become too dull now that you won't be able to pass laws over Scotland.

Edmund: (nods, then turns and speaks sotto voce) I wouldn't pass water over Scotland.

woolyalan
25th Sep 2006, 19:08
Yes Yes Mr Davaar, Our royal family IS German, changed their name at the begining of the Great War through fear of their being a rebelion (allegedly)

Just a thought, the other little countries that make up the Great British Isles have their own parliment, so why doesn't little England have its own? (The Houses of Parliment dont count, they (sort of) rule the whole of GB & Commonwealth)

Me being the idealist I am would like to see a stop to the squabaling between the scots, irish, welsh and english :ooh: but its unlikely to happen in the next few millenia.

P.S. sorry if there are any spelling mistakes that I haven't noticed, im on day two of my 5 day bender :cool:

Big Tudor
25th Sep 2006, 19:09
No, I think England should appoint an English PM. I also think that Scotland should be given full independence and appoint a Scot as a Scottish PM. I always found it slightly galling that the World supported the former Soviet states in their campaign to be recognised as independant states whilst at the same time Scotlands claims were, at best, ignored. Scotland would manage quite comfortably on it's own, thank you very much. And it would prevent any more Westminster based governments testing ill-thought out policies on a population whose votes were going elsewhere (i.e. the Poll Tax).
And if nothing else it would mean plenty of immigration and security jobs securing the border! ;)

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 19:13
Hmmmm! Wonders...*should i get involved in this thread*??:E :p

woolyalan
25th Sep 2006, 19:14
Yes you should colmac, i know you want to rebuild Hadrians Wall to keep out the Scottish Hordes

sorry

Clarence Oveur
25th Sep 2006, 19:15
Your point evades me, Clarence
No doubt it does. Perhaps that was my point.

haughtney1
25th Sep 2006, 19:19
I support an independent scotland.......as long as it means my london paid taxation money no longer goes north of the border...

dons hard hat and runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnsssss

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 19:19
Should England have a foreign Prime Minister?

Don't see why not. Chirac would be a good choice. :}

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 19:22
I support an independent scotland.......as long as it means my london paid taxation money no longer goes north of the border...
dons hard hat and runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnsssss

Oh **** it....incoming approaching haughtney soon:p

Over the past 30 years, the UK government has taken £200 billion in tax from North Sea Oil. Around 90% of the UK’s oil revenues come from the Scottish sector of the Continental Shelf. If it’s not Scotland’s oil, then whose is it?
I've posted it before, but here ya go again (http://www.snp.org/independence/yourquestions/scotlandsoilwealth/):mad: :hmm:


The crucial difference will be that the tax from the North Sea oil industry will be going, not to London, but to a Scottish Government, who can use it for the people of Scotland

Davaar
25th Sep 2006, 19:25
rebuild Hadrians Wall to keep out the Scottish Hordes

sorry

Let me see. The next one is to be Gordon Brown, from Scotland, whom failing Mr Reid, from Scotland. The current occupant is Tony Blair from Scotland (born and educated). The one you almost had, whose place Blair took when he died young, was John Smith, QC, born in, Oh Golly!, Dunoon,which would make him, I suppose, a Scot. I do believe you are approaching a horde.

Pan Pan Splash
25th Sep 2006, 19:28
I'm beginning to really like the "tone" of this thread.. if you'll pardon the pun..:E

Big Tudor
25th Sep 2006, 19:53
Quite a history of 'foreign' PM's last century:

Arthur James Balfour - born Whittingehame, East Lothian.
Henry Campbell-Bannerman - boen Kelvinside, Glasgow
Andrew Bonar Law - born New Brunswick, Canada
James Ramsay MacDonald - born Lossiemouth. Morayshire

BTW David Lloyd George was born in Chortlon-upon-Medlock, Manchester. Not quite the Taffy that he is made out (and no, my father didn't know him).

Looking at the list there ain't been that many PM's from the North of England over the years. Asquith, Baldwin, and Eden are the only ones from north of Manchester.

woolyalan
25th Sep 2006, 19:57
Let me see. The next one is to be Gordon Brown, from Scotland, whom failing Mr Reid, from Scotland. The current occupant is Tony Blair from Scotland (born and educated). The one you almost had, whose place Blair took when he died young, was John Smith, QC, born in, Oh Golly!, Dunoon,which would make him, I suppose, a Scot. I do believe you are approaching a horde.

I said scottish hordes in jest, also, the reason the wall was built in the first place was to keep out the THEN Scot Hordes. I do not, in any way, dislike the scots, they make shortbread :). If I did upset anyone through that previous post I am sorry

Davaar
25th Sep 2006, 20:06
...and I surely hope I did not offend you, wooly. Besides, as I recall, a genuine Horde is composed of Huns, and the Hun Horde Hazard hangs hesitant.

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 20:09
I do not, in any way, dislike the scots, they make shortbread
Is that the only reason why you like them?:confused:


I do not, in any way, dislike the English, they make the UK a laughing stock:ok: :p I mean any country which has the tenacity to produce Two Shags Prescott and make him Deputy PM to Scotsman Blair is comical in my book:E

G-Cap. You're very quiet - thoughts, please:}

Loki
25th Sep 2006, 20:09
Weren`t MacMillan and that tw*t Alexander Douglas Hume from Jockistan?

Big Tudor
25th Sep 2006, 20:11
horde  /hawrd, hohrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hawrd, hohrd]
–noun 1. a large group, multitude, number, etc.; a mass or crowd: a horde of tourists.
2. a tribe or troop of Asian nomads.
3. any nomadic group.
4. a moving pack or swarm of animals: A horde of mosquitoes invaded the camp.
–verb (used without object) 5. to gather in a horde: The prisoners horded together in the compound.

Guess #4 quite accurately describes the Tartan Armies pilgrimages to Wembley in the old days of the Home Internationals. :E

None of the above
25th Sep 2006, 20:11
Colmac.........

Political row brews as Scottish subsidy soars to record high

FRASER NELSON AND HAMISH MACDONELL

SCOTLAND's annual subsidy from England has shot up to a record £2,200 a head, according to official government figures, having more than doubled since Labour came to power.
Gordon Brown's spending bonanza has pushed Jack McConnell's budget to Scandinavian levels at a time when Scotland's tax burden dropped below that of England, Poland and Canada.
The figures from the Scottish Executive sparked a political storm yesterday as MSPs asked why it has failed to translate world-class spending into world-class public services.
In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent £45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy.
But only £34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an £11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised.
The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a £7 billion subsidy from England.
The Scottish Conservatives last night demanded to know what was going wrong. Derek Brownlee, their finance spokesman, said that while some of Scotland's higher spending needs are due to sparse population, the real culprit is "the Lib-Lab Executive's refusal to look at real reform in public services".
The Scottish National Party has long argued that the annual study, entitled Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) is a piece of statistical "propaganda". It says that if oil wealth is counted, then Scotland is subsidising England.
But Jim Mather, the SNP's economic spokesman, said he was alarmed at the growing disconnect between economic growth and government spending in Scotland.
"If the figures are correct, the Executive has serious questions to answer about their stewardship of Scotland's economy," he said. "Is there any other country in Europe that has experienced such a devastating slip in revenue against expenditure?"
Mr Mather said that rising oil prices would help Scotland, but only if the country was independent. The tax haul from oil is expected to almost treble, from £4.3 billion in 2003-4 to £11.7 billion in 2006-7.
Labour seized on the GERS report to say it destroyed the case for Scottish independence. "This is a hammer blow to those who talk about independence, or even fiscal autonomy. This shows that there is money that Scotland gets from being part of the UK which it wouldn't get if it was independent," a spokesman said.
The SNP counters that, even if an independent Scotland was in deficit, it would simply borrow money on international markets as the UK does.
For more than a century, Scotland has received a greater share of money than its population would indicate. The Executive has long defended this, saying the greater role of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and greater deprivation demands more spending.
But the subsidy - which was just £1,055 per head in 1997-98 - is becoming increasingly controversial in England, where a growing number of MPs want a new system for dividing government funds across the UK.
State spending in Scotland is next year forecast to soar to £51.6 billion - or 52.2 per cent of the national economy. This is not only higher than the UK's 45.2 per cent, but also any country in the developed world save Sweden, Denmark and France.
But the tax revenue for Scotland in 2003 - the last full year where figures are available - shows Scotland has the seventh lowest tax take among the world's 30 most developed countries.
Under the rules of devolution, the Scottish Executive cannot save money - or even turn down the sums sent from the Treasury each year. Its annual budget increase is decided by a system known as the Barnett Formula.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2409432005

Loki
25th Sep 2006, 20:15
None of the above:

Blimey, no wonder we haven`t seen much of you recently, you`ve been researching again (a crime for all self respecting jet blasters)

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 20:21
With due respect None of the above that is over-spending from Scottish Labour, (to this day, run by Westminster - doesn't really matter if Scotland has it's own Parliament, however:rolleyes: )

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 20:29
G-Cap. You're very quiet - thoughts, please:}
I'm merely lying back watching (and reading) the fun.
I derive MY pleasure from tossing a squib (whether damp or otherwise) into the arena and then waiting whilst those that care come out from hiding and do battle. For folks like Clarence, don't assume that I care one way or another. Those that know my style realise that I'm just a stirrer. :E


The IRONY of the situation is that there is genuine concern (in England) that Gordon is SCOTTISH (and therefore to be avoided), whilst Tony is already 'the enemy within'. They just don't realise how futile their arguments ARE (except for those brillliant, well-informed, folk here). Nobody has reacted to the Black Country taunt. I didn't want to make it personal by mentioning Yorkshire or Lancashire. Still think the Beast of Bolsover should be given a chance. It's a SHAME that Wedgie never had a go either.

rab-k
25th Sep 2006, 20:30
"Should England have a foreign Prime Minister?"

*uck me readers! I've only gone and missed the most important political, nay, constitutional development since the majority of the Irish bogged off to do their own thing, and no *astard thought fit to tell me!

So, when did England regain the independence it gave up nearly 300 years ago and split from the other constituent countries of the presumably now former United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland?

Surely, if the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland has reverted to its former status as Parliament of the Kingdom of England then surely there would have been something in the news papers at the very least!

Can't believe BBC's R4 'World @ 1' and 'PM' didn't mention it.

Just off to pen a letter of complaint to the Chairman of the BBC Governors.

"Dear Michael...


:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

None of the above
25th Sep 2006, 20:35
Colmac...........

It isn't really a question of 'who' but one of 'why?'

The fact remains that we're still shovelling cash northbound at a colossal rate of knots!

Quote:

"In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent £45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy.
But only £34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an £11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised.
The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a £7 billion subsidy from England".

BTW Hiya, Loki!

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 20:37
Those that know my style realise that I'm just a stirrer.

I think rab-k has beaten you in the stir stakes though:p :D :E

Welcome aboard Rab:8

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 20:39
Colmac...........
It isn't really a question of 'who' but one of 'why?'
The fact remains that we're still shovelling cash northbound at a colossal rate of knots!
Quote:
"In its annual survey of the Scottish economy, the Executive said the government spent £45.3 billion in 2003-4, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy.
But only £34 billion was generated in tax. This leaves an £11.3 billion gap, which has to be filled by tax collected in England, as Wales and Northern Ireland are also heavily subsidised.
The figures do not include North Sea oil and gas; but the study shows that even if Scotland had collected every penny of tax raised offshore, it would still have required a £7 billion subsidy from England".
BTW Hiya, Loki!

Yes, i did read that. The Scotsman, no less..Hmm:hmm:

Clarence Oveur
25th Sep 2006, 20:47
I'm merely lying back watching (and reading) the fun.
I derive MY pleasure from tossing a squib (whether damp or otherwise) into the arena and then waiting whilst those that care come out from hiding and do battle. For folks like Clarence, don't assume that I care one way or another. Those that know my style realise that I'm just a stirrer. :E

Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thoroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.

Lon More
25th Sep 2006, 20:54
... Don't know about foreign, but was Attila the Hen actually a member of the human race??

colmac747
25th Sep 2006, 20:58
The IRONY of the situation is that there is genuine concern (in England) that Gordon is SCOTTISH

Perhaps another fine reason for Scotland to go it alone!? All genuine concern would then cease..

ORAC
25th Sep 2006, 20:59
So, when did England regain the independence it gave up nearly 300 years ago and split from the other constituent countries of the presumably now former United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland? The point, of course, is that Scotland and, partially, Wales have, so on what ground s would you say England should not follow?

rab-k
25th Sep 2006, 21:11
The point, of course, is that Scotland and, partially, Wales have, so on what ground s would you say England should not follow?

Really????

Better get my passport changed, 'cause as of this morning it still said "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland"!

Oh, silly me, you're referring to "Devolution" aren't you. :rolleyes:

In that case, I'm all for England being "Devolved" from the rest of us.

I, like many in Scotland, am sick fed up of contributing towards the salaries of Scottish MPs whose time at Westminster is spent not on matters Scottish, but running UK Government Departments whose sole responsibility is to all things English:

Home Office (Devolved in Scotland)
Dept. of Trade & Industry (Devolved in Scotland)
Dept. of Transport (Devolved in Scotland)

All headed by MPs from Scottish constituencies.

Those who do not fall within the category of political 'high flyers' are employed merely as 'lobby fodder' so as to ensure that Labour policies get past a non-Labour rump of English MPs.

It's about time those to$$ers from Scotland on the Westminster gravy train actually did something for Scotland, instead of wasting their time and our money running England!:ugh:

tony draper
25th Sep 2006, 21:18
Mark my words, buggas be wanted a Stewart on the throne next. :rolleyes:

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 21:20
Moira Stewart?
She sounds as if she'd be Scottish, with a name like that . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/images/moira_stewart_225x275.jpg
Then we could have Pam St Clement as first lady . . .

Big Tudor
25th Sep 2006, 21:21
Too right Drapes. Jackie Stewart for King! Wouldn't he also be eligible for Buck House as well? Gorra be better than Charles Phillip Arthur George. ;)

BlooMoo
25th Sep 2006, 21:22
The point, of course, is that Scotland and, partially, Wales have, so on what ground s would you say England should not follow?
Follow away. With 85% of the UK electorate that's rather lame. It's leadership you're short of. You know it, we know it. When are you going to do something about it?

BM:rolleyes:

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 21:39
Who gives a ****. The only reason why a w*nker gets into politics is to look after number 1 whether he/she/it be a Taffy, jock or pome or any other race Creed or colour.
Very true. But we aren't talking about Number 1 here, we're talking about Number 10.


(I'm amazed how much response this thread has prompted. At least it hasn't developed into a Hamster Wheel though.)

DG101
25th Sep 2006, 21:47
To all ye advocats of the return of the Stewarts - beware! You may find a certain gentleman, known to some as "Rod", at the helm

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 21:48
Never mind the creedians, what about the fenians? Shouldn't THEY do their duty and take their turn (as PM)? Maybe we should ask Revd Ian?

ShyTorque
25th Sep 2006, 21:53
Or, even worse, had we been talking a few years ago, ANDY Stewart.

"Donal' where's ya trewsers?"

Mind you, he was racist. All that talk of the WHITE Heather Club. Who was she?

tony draper
25th Sep 2006, 21:55
Hell we even prefered a Dutchman to shamus the last Scotsman on the throne,chucked him out we did,even the Irish didn't want him.
Think its still agin the law for a left footer to wear the crown anyway.
:rolleyes:

brain fade
25th Sep 2006, 22:36
You'll get the PM you're given. And like it.:E

rab-k
25th Sep 2006, 22:56
I think you'll all find that a woman who went by the name of Queen Anne was the last of that particular line to wear any crown.

So your 'Proddy Cloggy' was replaced once more by a Stewart, who in turn was replaced by a rather sour 'Kraut' who couldn't speak a word of English and went by the name of 'George, Elector of Hannover'.

It was thanks to Queen Anne's political 'lap-dogs' that the then independent parliaments of Scotland and England were united as the Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain. A parliament which, save for a couple of tweaks at the Irish seams, continues to this day and, together with the State it created, will celebrate its Tercentenary on May 1st next year.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge3.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge3.gif%5B/img%5D) 300 years of 'Rule Britannia' eh? http://www.pprune.org/forums/%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge3.gif%5B/img%5D

Will we all be celebrating having a Scot a its political helm for that occasion? I wonder...

goshdarnit
25th Sep 2006, 23:06
I nominate Sven! (He mentions innocently and walks away...:) )

BlooMoo
25th Sep 2006, 23:32
Will we all be celebrating? I wonder!
Stop talking in riddles Rab! Say it straight, how about:

For as long as but one hundred Englishmen remain alive, never will they have any cause to celebrate. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honour that this should be so but for malice, which no honest minority gives up but with life itself.

BM:hmm:

Bluesteel705
25th Sep 2006, 23:51
Still think the Beast of Bolsover should be given a chance.

I agree. He's actualy quite a personable chap. Lives a few doors down from me. So then I could have another person to put on the 'Famous people from your hometown thread :}

"When I called the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) a pompous sod, Mr. Speaker said to me, 'You had better withdraw that'. I said I would withdraw 'pompous', but said, Mr. Speaker 'That's not the word I'm looking for.' There was laughter in the House and everyone thought that I had hit the nail on the head. I thought that that was a real parliamentary triumph, but Mr. Speaker thought differently. He said, 'Off you go,' and I did not get a chance to reply."

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2006, 23:57
Characters such as Dennis and Wedgie should have been ENCOURAGED to express their opinions to liven-up proceedings.

I saw a TV documentary wherein they were reprising the achievements of the Postmaster General who 'built' the London Post Office Tower. Since the IRA bombings, the upper storeys of the Post Office Tower (which included a rotating restaurant) have been closed to the public. The (BBC?) took Wedgie (who WAS the PMG in question) to visit the tower, but the jobsworths wouldn't allow access, and clearly hadn't the faintest idea who Wedgie was.
Very sad . . .

Apologies for the aviation connection:-
In the 1960s government of Harold Wilson he became Postmaster General; during his time in that position he oversaw the opening of the Post Office Tower, the creation of the Postal Bus Service and the introduction of the UK's first commemorative postage stamps to be designed by David Gentleman. He proposed issuing stamps without the Sovereign's head, but this was vetoed by the Queen. Instead, the portrait was reduced to a small profile in silhouette, a format that is still often used on stamps today.[2] He later became Minister of Technology, a post which allowed his enthusiasm for gadgets to shine through, including responsibility for overseeing the development of Concorde.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn

Blacksheep
26th Sep 2006, 06:33
A rather patriotic Scot who slept four beds along from me in a barrack room, one night declared that "if it wernae fer we Scots there wouldnae be a bladdy Great Britain!" This provoked an animated discussion and upon reflection, we all agreed that he might well be correct.

rab-k
26th Sep 2006, 09:53
"Special coin to mark Act of Union


A £2 coin will be issued next year to mark the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, Chancellor Gordon Brown has said.


There will also be a £2 coin to mark 200 years since the abolition of the slave trade, he told MPs.

And a collectable crown piece worth £5 will mark the Queen and Prince Philip's diamond wedding anniversary.

"Collector versions of all these coins will be released at a premium above face value," Mr Brown said.

A statement issued by Mr Brown, who is Scottish and widely tipped to become prime minister next year, said the Queen had approved his recommendation that a coin be issued to mark the unification of England and Scotland into Great Britain in 1707.
Mr Brown also said there would be a special 50p coin to commemorate the centenary of the Scouting movement. All the special coins will be available in collectable versions and the three lower value coins will also be available from banks and post offices later in 2007. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5083020.stm

Also:

"Union (flag) recognition"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4895076.stm

"Scots 'supported' union signing"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/5378214.stm

Curious Pax
26th Sep 2006, 10:02
The Prime Minister was (last time I looked) Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, and thus it is a little surprising that a native of that entity should be considered ineligible for the office. It would be more honest of the anti-Brown brigade to acknowledge that it is not his Scottishness that offends them, but his political affiliation.

The irony is that if Labour came out today with a proposal to dissolve the Union the same folks would be posting on how disgraceful it is that these lefties want to demolish 299 years of tradition!

Nothing wrong with being anti-Brown, but some approaches to the problem could have unintended and far-reaching consequences.

ORAC
26th Sep 2006, 10:07
It would be more honest of the anti-Brown brigade to acknowledge that it is not his Scottishness that offends them, but his political affiliation.
Does that include Cherie.... :}

Curious Pax
26th Sep 2006, 10:33
So it would appear....