I suspect they may have little choice but to farm many admin functions back to English Agencies for a lnger period than 18months until they can set up their own regulatory bodies, agencies, and procedures..?

The chance of being able to set up the civil service from scratch in a modern era using modern systems without having to worry about legacy compatibility or about retaining people who have demonstrated themselves to be unable to use IT to its potential (or are useless/lazy) – that opportunity is to be greatly cherished.

Whereas in the United Kingdom as whole nobody has thought of that? :rolleyes:

I mean hunted out the door by protests to the point where the current system over here is consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.

I would hope for a replacement of the shambles that is modern “democracy” with a form of elected technocracy which would actually have ministerial posts run by individuals that are qualified and competent in the relevant fields*… the public then vote for in overall tax levels and changes in what proportion of the public spend goes to each ministry.

*rather than the current farce where everything is headed up by political graduates from Eton.

Well the Scots particularly and the Northern Irish and Northern English do pretty well out of Westminster subsidies.

I’ll happily point out our particular brand of political f__kwits over here couldn’t run a pissup in a brewery.

But, if we had to stand on our own feet, they’d be hunted out of office very shortly and then there would be changes made for the better rather than the continual limping along as is present now.

Same elsewhere. Instead of living off the crumbs that drop from London, the reality check on prices, investment, handouts etc would be for the greater good long term.

Having more money is not necessarily for the better. Over here, it just means more is wasted by di_kheads on di_kheads.

And it may have escaped your attention but the whole of the UK is represented at Westminster by several hundred MPs.

Yes, but if the decisions are dominated by the representatives from the home counties, how much good does it actually do the other regions?

The biggest problems is the failure to keep the wishes of the armed forces under control.

+1

Taking one of your examples: The capabilities of an F-35 will never be necessary in a hostile environment as an LHD will be deemed wholly unsuited to the task… The USN will be dispatched with real carriers and CTOL jets will be used instead.

The answer given to that question will depend on which appeal to either emotion (Yes) or intellect (No) is successful.

Such arrogance.

But it is in keeping with quite a few posters on this thread.

There are several different “regions” within the UK. The hybrid of which in the unified country may not be best for all.

– London
– South England
– North England
– South Wales
– West Wales
– Scottish central belt
– Highlands
– Scottish borders
– N. Ireland (even it I would break into two, Belfast and Country).

Currently focus of the politicians is mostly London-centric. That does come with detrimental affects everywhere else. Of course, people will argue “London provides most of the tax revenues, so its only natural” – but London provides most of the revenue because the infrastructure concentration is by far its greatest there, with a snowball effect.

Scotland will have to form their own air force.

Why?

If they don’t feel the need to go sticking their collective nose into other parts of the world, then why would they need an airforce?

I don’t see the logic of them wanting to join NATO (not saying that Salmond doesnt want to).

Basically, NATO is never going to allow hostile boots on Scottish land given the extremely vulnerable position it would put England in; therefore joining NATO adds cost while in reality the protection is largely already present anyway.

Pentagon mistakes? Where to start.

But, to be fair, their mistakes are reflective of issues in the wider US nation.

One of the most corrupt examples of “democracy” on the planet – why would the people who evidently are too stupid to realise their “elected” officials are merely mouthpieces for corporations and interest groups deserve any better than billions of their dollars wasted on feeding those corporations/interest groups? Hence why every program that can becomes “joint” and expands to a point where as many states as possible are involved and so election donors are satisfied – but hey, uncle sam, yeehaa, derka derka, team america etc etc.

As soon as the inputs to any decision extend beyond the technical/operational then you have serious issues. When is the last time a Pentagon decision wasn’t ruled by politics?