Chan Island wrote:Nationalist Northumbria wrote:It's not a "game where you try to find the special plea about every example" you bring up, it's just that your examples are bad. Your "Oh, independence? Why not independence for A HOUSE?" argument is a bad faith one and I will not engage with it beyond stating the obvious: Canterbury, let alone solely its rich areas, does not constitute an entity that could be independent as anything other than a nominally independent but in reality utterly dependent city-state (unlike the South). You do not offer the logical conclusion of 'my' argument (not my argument in this case actually), you offer its ILLOGICAL conclusion. Also Hales Place is not 'poor' it is a student area.
Less than 14% of people across Cornwall (only 16% in St Ives) could be bothered to report it as a national identity at the 2011 census so I think I should be fine thanks. Don't get me wrong though, I have great affection for the indigenous peoples of this island, whether they be Cumbrian, Welsh, or Cornish.
"why should the region of Britain that most strongly identifies as British secede from Britain?" IDK, as I said in the OP, "I, personally, am in favour of fiscal autonomy for the South" not independence. Go ask Nationalist Southumbria (South-Severn-Trent-ia?) why.
Of course results before 1997 matter. I can give you the 1992, 1987, and 1983 results if you want. Best interests of someone residing in London? Young, degree-educated Londoners would no longer be handing over 42.75% of earnings over £20,000 (there was a very good screenshot doing the rounds in past days) in a low-tax South. With a party of the right looking after their interests and not those of home-owning pensioners in some mythical place called 'the Red Wall', it hardly seems unreasonable that the more prosperous parts of London could once more vote the way they did in the 1980s.
Finally, 1. politics is about vibes and 2. Lancaster is a university city.
Damn right it was bad faith by that point. I had asked you the same question multiple times and you dodged it every time.
You have such great affection for the people of Britain that you dismiss their heritages, call old languages conlangs, ignore their identifications and seek for every part of Britain to be independent for no good reason. Suuuuure you do.
Oh don't give me that. You titled this southern independence. You are by far the best known for advocating full independence for another part of Britain in NSG. You spent 3 paragraphs in the OP making the case for it before sheepishly putting a "well it could be not full independence" style addition. You argue in favour of that independence when others counter. It is fully legitimate to rebut that argument here.
Young, degree-earning Londoners who overwhelmingly support higher taxes, more social spending and greater welfare, and are the strongest supporters in the country for that party- not to mention among the most likely people in Britain to consider themselves British. Yeah, blow off again on how much you care about Londoner wallets.
"Vibes" and this deflection on Lancaster being a university town (when Guildford is also one you so&so) is a way just for you to pretend that you somehow have a point. You clearly don't.
Rational discussion is obviously impossible at this point. Have fun.
"Young, degree-earning Londoners who overwhelmingly support higher taxes, more social spending and greater welfare, and are the strongest supporters in the country for that party" This is such a fundamentally flawed understanding of British politics, with no relation to actual reality beyond the fact they vote Labour, that I don't even know where to begin. Anyway, thanks for admitting you lost the argument. And don't start trying to lecture me about 'deflection' when you're bringing up Guildford out of nowhere.
