NOW AFTER BREXIT SCOTLAND IS KEEPING THE
EUROPEAN UNION FLAG[NOT THE BRITISH FLAG] ,WHILE NORTHERN IRELAND NOW IS CLOSER TO IRELAND BECAUSE ENGLAND HAS ALLOWED IT FOR SPECIAL TRADE
RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPEAN UNION THROUGH IRELAND
WHAT REMAINS IS PLAIN OLD ENGLAND WITH POOR WALES, WITH NO EXIT POSSIBLE FOR WALES FROM ENGLAND
Reparations
for war have a long history – the British liked to impose them at the
drop of a hat, for example billing the Tibetan government Rs. 2.5
million after invading Tibet in 1904. Compensation for larger and more
nebulous crimes is, like many ideas now floating in the intellectual
ether, American in origin. In Martin Luther King Jr’s 1963 speech at the
Lincoln Memorial, he said the promise of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness’ was not being fulfilled: ‘It is obvious today that
America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens
of color are concerned.’ Ta-Nehisi Coates returned to the theme last
year with an influential article in the Atlantic suggesting
the US needed a ‘national reckoning’ over the debts of slavery. Coates
has a point: anyone who passes time in the southern states of America or
in the Caribbean will notice the enduring consequences of chattel
slavery.
Tharoor’s
demand that Britain should pay reparations to India for historic damage
rests, though, on insecure foundations. He observed that India’s share
of the world economy dropped from 23 to 4 per cent during the centuries
of informal and formal British rule. This change had more to do with the
rapid economic transformation of western Europe by the Industrial
Revolution than it did with adjustments inside India: a largely
agricultural economy could not match an industrialising one. His claim
rests on the ‘drain theory’ — that Britain sucked away India’s
prosperity — proposed by late 19th century
nationalists like the Liberal MP Dadabhai Naoroji. When India gained
independence and the ‘drain’ stopped, there was no sign of the promised
surplus.
Tharoor
argued that Britain owed a debt of £1.25 billion to the Indian
government at the end of the second world war for the 2.5 million
volunteers who had fought the Axis powers, but it was ‘never actually
paid.’ Not only was this debt honoured, but it formed an essential part
of Jawaharlal Nehru’s early economic planning. The governor of the
Reserve Bank of India later complained that the new prime minister had
run through the sterling balances ‘as if there was no tomorrow.’
Tharoor
concluded his witty and entertaining speech by saying his concern was
not monetary value, but ‘the principle that reparations are owed’ –
saying he would be happy for India to be paid £1 a year by Britain for
the next 200 years. It was here that he betrayed the essential frivolity
of his case. He was appealing not for the rebalancing of entrenched
global financial structures that date to the 18th century,
but for moral victory. Like a surface-to-air missile, he locked on to
the spot where he knew his well-heeled Oxford Union audience would be
most vulnerable: postcolonial guilt. It did the speaker no harm that his
voice is of the orotund type heard in early television documentaries
about the royal family. Tharoor told an Indian TV anchor that so many of
the audience trooped through the yes lobby in support of his
reparations motion that the ‘swank dinner’ following the debate was
delayed.
The
irony of the case for compensation is that it would have made little
sense to those who were actually subjects of the British empire. Indian
politicians in the 21st century
sometimes appear to be more anti-imperialist than their predecessors who
risked their lives for independence in the 1930s and 40s. For much of
his public career, Gandhi viewed the empire as a guarantor of his civil
rights. Even after spending eleven years in British jails, Nehru was
happy to toast the King Emperor and to make sure the Union Jack was not
lowered when the Indian tricolor was raised. The Indian National
Congress, the forerunner of Tharoor’s party, was for most of its
existence a collaborationist movement. India’s hereditary princes were
almost without exception imperialists. Only a small number of people in
the 20th century sought the violent
overthrow of British rule in India. Even nationalists who were
infuriated by the structural racism inherent in the empire often saw
empire as a progressive force. British rule in India was an act of
complicity, a joint venture between the elites of the two nations.
Today, all of that historical complexity has been forgotten: an attack
on the empire by a politician is a risk-free way of ensuring cross-party
unity and vigorous applause.
Paying
a token reparation of £1 a year would be an absurdity. It presupposes
that the government which might have arisen in India in the absence of
the British would have been preferable to the one that resulted.
Particularly, it supposes that the alternative regime would have
produced comparable stability for the growth of internal trade. At the
start of the 18th century after the
depredations of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, the subcontinent was in a
state of bitter, broken conflict. In its wake, outsiders from Europe
were able to pay mercenaries to assert dominance on their behalf.
Looking forward towards the period after independence in 1947, there is
nothing in the conduct of the Congress party during their long decades
in power to suggest they might have used compensation wisely or well.
The 1970s marked a growth rate in India of below 1 per cent. Nor is
there the slightest chance that an expression of British remorse for
long forgotten political choices, which occurred at a different time and
in an entirely different historical context, would engender any respect
in India, a country with no tradition of contrition. Being an Indian
politician means never having to say you’re sorry.
Patrick French is the author of India: A Portrait (Penguin)
Sorry, Shashi Tharoor, but Britain doesn’t owe[HAVE ANY MONEY] India any reparations
Reparations
for war have a long history – the British liked to impose them at the
drop of a hat, for example billing the Tibetan government Rs. 2.5
million after invading Tibet in 1904. Compensation for larger and more
nebulous crimes is, like many ideas now floating in the intellectual
ether, American in origin. In Martin Luther King Jr’s 1963 speech at the
Lincoln Memorial, he said the promise of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness’ was not being fulfilled: ‘It is obvious today that
America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens
of color are concerned.’ Ta-Nehisi Coates returned to the theme last
year with an influential article in the Atlantic suggesting
the US needed a ‘national reckoning’ over the debts of slavery. Coates
has a point: anyone who passes time in the southern states of America or
in the Caribbean will notice the enduring consequences of chattel
slavery.
Tharoor’s
demand that Britain should pay reparations to India for historic damage
rests, though, on insecure foundations. He observed that India’s share
of the world economy dropped from 23 to 4 per cent during the centuries
of informal and formal British rule. This change had more to do with the
rapid economic transformation of western Europe by the Industrial
Revolution than it did with adjustments inside India: a largely
agricultural economy could not match an industrialising one. His claim
rests on the ‘drain theory’ — that Britain sucked away India’s
prosperity — proposed by late 19th century
nationalists like the Liberal MP Dadabhai Naoroji. When India gained
independence and the ‘drain’ stopped, there was no sign of the promised
surplus.
Tharoor
argued that Britain owed a debt of £1.25 billion to the Indian
government at the end of the second world war for the 2.5 million
volunteers who had fought the Axis powers, but it was ‘never actually
paid.’ Not only was this debt honoured, but it formed an essential part
of Jawaharlal Nehru’s early economic planning. The governor of the
Reserve Bank of India later complained that the new prime minister had
run through the sterling balances ‘as if there was no tomorrow.’
Tharoor
concluded his witty and entertaining speech by saying his concern was
not monetary value, but ‘the principle that reparations are owed’ –
saying he would be happy for India to be paid £1 a year by Britain for
the next 200 years. It was here that he betrayed the essential frivolity
of his case. He was appealing not for the rebalancing of entrenched
global financial structures that date to the 18th century,
but for moral victory. Like a surface-to-air missile, he locked on to
the spot where he knew his well-heeled Oxford Union audience would be
most vulnerable: postcolonial guilt. It did the speaker no harm that his
voice is of the orotund type heard in early television documentaries
about the royal family. Tharoor told an Indian TV anchor that so many of
the audience trooped through the yes lobby in support of his
reparations motion that the ‘swank dinner’ following the debate was
delayed.
The
irony of the case for compensation is that it would have made little
sense to those who were actually subjects of the British empire. Indian
politicians in the 21st century
sometimes appear to be more anti-imperialist than their predecessors who
risked their lives for independence in the 1930s and 40s. For much of
his public career, Gandhi viewed the empire as a guarantor of his civil
rights. Even after spending eleven years in British jails, Nehru was
happy to toast the King Emperor and to make sure the Union Jack was not
lowered when the Indian tricolor was raised. The Indian National
Congress, the forerunner of Tharoor’s party, was for most of its
existence a collaborationist movement. India’s hereditary princes were
almost without exception imperialists. Only a small number of people in
the 20th century sought the violent
overthrow of British rule in India. Even nationalists who were
infuriated by the structural racism inherent in the empire often saw
empire as a progressive force.
British
rule in India was an act of complicity, a joint venture between the
elites of the two nations. Today, all of that historical complexity has
been forgotten: an attack on the empire by a politician is a risk-free
way of ensuring cross-party unity and vigorous applause.
Paying
a token reparation of £1 a year would be an absurdity. It presupposes
that the government which might have arisen in India in the absence of
the British would have been preferable to the one that resulted.
Particularly, it supposes that the alternative regime would have
produced comparable stability for the growth of internal trade. At the
start of the 18th century after the
depredations of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, the subcontinent was in a
state of bitter, broken conflict. In its wake, outsiders from Europe
were able to pay mercenaries to assert dominance on their behalf.
Looking forward towards the period after independence in 1947, there is
nothing in the conduct of the Congress party during their long decades
in power to suggest they might have used compensation wisely or well.
The 1970s marked a growth rate in India of below 1 per cent.
Nor
is there the slightest chance that an expression of British remorse for
long forgotten political choices, which occurred at a different time
and in an entirely different historical context, would engender any
respect in India, a country with no tradition of contrition. Being an
Indian politician means never having to say you’re sorry.
Patrick French is the author of India: A Portrait (Penguin)
British EMPIRE 1938
British lion then :- 
British lion NOW
British EMPIRE 2018
Sep 5, 2013 - Russia mocked Britain today as “a small island no one listens to”, sparking a .
..............................................................................................................................
A
PSLV (polar satellite launch vehicle) will be launched on September 16
night from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota to put two
earth observation ...
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/.../isro-launches...uk-satellites/article24965948....
5 days ago - The launch of two satellites of the United Kingdom — NovaSAR and S1-4 from Sriharikota Space Port on Sunday night by the Indian Space ...
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/.../isros-pslv...two...satellites/article24962349.ece
ISRO's PSLV-C-42 launches two U.K. satellites. T.K. Rohit. Sriharikota, September 16, 2018 22:56 IST. Updated: September 17, 2018 13:30 IST. Share Article ...
https://www.firstpost.com › Technology News › Science
6 days ago - Two satellites aboard the Indian rocket - Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) - belonged to Surrey Satellite Technologies Ltd (SSTL), UK
THEN WE CARRIED WHITE MEN AND WOMEN ON RICKSHAWS
NOW we carry satellites
India yellow line was first super power of the world from A.D. 1 TO A.D. 1000
AFTER BRITISH LOOTING RULE FROM 1800 TO 1947 INDIA BECAME POOR
When britishers came to India , India was like
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/.../legacy-of-british-rule-is-still-holding-india-back
Apr 11, 2017 - Evidence mounts that the former colony would have been better off without its master. ... Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. ... hear about India is whether British colonialism has been good or bad for ...
In terms PPP, Indian GDP will overtake USA by 2030, and go on to overtake China by 2050 as world’s largest economy.
According to a CITI Financial Services Group report summarized in REDIFF and reproduced below,
China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020,
then be overtaken by India by 2050.
Following will be the 10 largest economies in the world in 2050:
1. India: $85.97 trillion
2. China: $80.02 trillion
3. United States: $39.07 trillion
4. Indonesia: $13.93 trillion
5. Brazil: $11.58 trillion
6. Nigeria: $9.51 trillion
7. Russia: $7.77 trillion
8. Mexico: $6.57 trillion
https://www.cnbc.com/id/41775174
Feb 25, 2011 - "China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050," he predicted.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article.../US-slip-worlds-biggest-economy-2050.html
Feb 25, 2011 - 'China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050,' Buiter predicted.
www.rediff.com › Business
Feb 24, 2011 - "China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050," financial services ...
NATURALLY
WESTERN POWERS WILL TRY ALL DIRTY TRICKS TO KEEP CHINA AND INDIA FROM
ACHIEVING THIS ,INCLUDING POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL SABOTAGE
.looting of india by British :-
"Mutinous Sepoys Dividing Spoil," a steel engraving, c.1858
Source: ebay, Oct. 2001
British soldiers looting the Qaisar Bagh, Lucknow, after its recapture
Source: ebay, Oct. 2001
"The
engraving depicts the 'Times' correspondent looking on at the sacking
of the Kaiser Bagh, after the capture of Lucknow on March 15, 1858. "'Is
this string of little white stones (pearls) worth anything, Gentlemen?'
asks the plunderer." From 'The History of the Indian Mutiny' by Charles
Ball (London: London Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., 1858).
The
Red Fort was of course looted too , and parts of it were heavily
damaged as well (Illustrated London News, 1858): very large scans of *the upper picture* and *the lower picture*
Source: ebay, Mar. 2010
"The Plunder of the Kaiserbagh," William Howard Russell, 'My Diary in India', vol. 1, 1860
Source: ebay, Jan. 2007
"Sikh Troops Dividing the Spoil Taken from Mutineers," from 'History of the Indian Mutiny', c.1860; with modern hand coloring
Source: http://www.antiqueprints.com/products.php?cat=34
(downloaded Dec. 2004)
== Indian Routes index == Indian Routes sitemap == Glossary == FWP's main page ==
Illustration: Uttam Ghosh
Great Britain has looted a whopping 9.184 trillion pounds of wealth from India in a period of 173 years.
Just
to put things in a perspective, as per Wikipedia, Britain’s current
economy is worth 1.83 trillion pounds. In simple terms, the amount of
wealth Britain has drained out of India is worth several times the size
of that country’s GDP today. So, if Britain even tried to pay back that
money to India, its economy would collapse to a point of no return. The
estimate has been calculated by eminent economist Utsa Patnaik.
Will Britain ever be able to take off the burden of what it did to India? Above:
24th June 1939: The Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow (1887 - 1952), with his wife Lady Linlithgow © Getty Images Sourced from Sott.net
Patnaik
is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning
(CESP), JNU. Patnaik said that the policies followed by Britain during
its colonial rule in India were so disastrous that per capita food
grains availability in India declined drastically from 197.3 kg per year
in 1909-14 to 136.8 kg per year in 1946.
In
India, just as also happened in many countries in the Caribbean, local
producers were set to work to produce commodities – particularly primary
commodities which the colonial powers could never produce themselves in
their home countries. The colonial powers then proceeded to appropriate
these commodities.
In
the Indian case, this appropriation took the form of getting Indian
peasants and labourers to produce an enormous global export surplus
which earned gold and foreign exchange. “But the whole of this global
export surplus earnings disappeared into the account of the Secretary of
State for India in London. Not a penny of it, of sterling or financial
gold, was allowed to flow back to the colonised country. Then how did
the producers get paid? Very clever. They got paid out of their own
taxes!” said Patnaik.
Surplus
budgets were being operated systematically in British-ruled India for
the best part of 200 years. “When you tax a population and you do not
spend all the taxation within the country, but you set aside a third or
more for purchasing export goods, the operation of such surplus budgets
deflates mass incomes. It puts a tremendous squeeze on the peasantry.”
“No
country in the world today in the Global South has a per capita food
availability as low as the level India had reached by the year 1946.”
How
was this amount calculated? By estimating the present value of the
commodity export surplus - the estimate of 9.184 trillion pounds has
been arrived at by calculating the present value at a relatively low 5
percent interest rate.
(By
the way, Dadabhai Naoroji, one of the co-founders of Indian National
Congress in his book “Poverty And Un-British Rule In India” estimated
that the siphoning of wealth from India by the British was to the tune
of 4 million pounds a year.
https://archive.org/details/povertyandunbri00naorgoog
May 8, 2009 - Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
his
he calculated from the year 1857 onwards which went unabated till 1947.
Assuming that the drainage was an estimated 2 million pounds a year
from 1757 (Battle of Plassey) to 1856 and 4 million pounds from the year
1857 to 1947 as mentioned before, then the total amount swindled would
be an astonishing eye-opener in today’s terms. Source: http://bwindia.net/content/briti...)
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/.../british-looters-kept-the-world-s-art-safe-1.2230981
Jun 3, 2018 - The demand by TV historian David Olusoga for British museums to repatriate “looted” treasures is a familiar anti-colonial trope that has little ..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45238158
Aug 19, 2018 - The UK will investigate allegations that British World War Two wrecks in Asia have been targeted by scavengers, the defence secretary says.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/british-museum-repatriates-antiquities-iraq-1331390
Aug 10, 2018 - The British Museum has repatriated a trove of 5,000-year-old antiquities that were looted from an ancient site in Iraq shortly after the US ...
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-things-stolen-by-the-British-during-their-govern...
Aug 31, 2015 - After the heroic death of the Tiger of Mysore – Tipu Sultan, the British forces took ... In 1851, it was displayed with other treasures of the Indian Empire at the ...
Videos
Facts in Telugu తెలుగు లొ...
Web results
https://swarajyamag.com/.../forget-kohinoor-the-british-looted-greater-treasures-from-...
Apr 30, 2016 - The extent of British Plunder makes the Kohinoor appear a small loss. So let the Britishkeep the stone. The British caused irreparable losses to ...
https://indianexpress.com › Research › Express Originals
Aug 15, 2016 - In Britain, a museum visitor from India is suddenly made aware of how his or ... about the display of their national treasures in British museums.
Web results
https://scroll.in › Culture › History Revisited
Apr 22, 2016 - Not just the Kohinoor: Four other artefacts that India wants Britain to return ... is at the top of every list of national treasures that India wants back from its ... of India's lost or stolen artefacts, prompting British parliamentarian Keith ...
https://www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › Home News
Jun 1, 2010 - Some 150 years ago, a British engineer overseeing the construction of the ... "As efforts so far to reclaim stolen treasures have proved futile, ...
https://defenceforumindia.com › Forums › Indian Affairs › Politics & Society
Dec 22, 2009 - The Stolen Wealth of India During British Rule Though it is a bitter ... to bring to account atrocities of the British and stolen national treasures.
https://instablogs.com/9-priceless-artifacts-know-india1.html
Aug 2, 2012 - The golden throne is king Ranjit Singh's another example of the British looting the magnificent treasures of India. A skilled yet hitherto unknown ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../British-Museum-display-millennia-old-looted-treasures-A...
Mar 2, 2011 - 'Beautiful and priceless' ancient treasures stolen from Afghanistan on ... from 200-150 BC and Indian ivory furniture legs from the first century ...
https://www.telesurtv.net/.../5-Ways-the-British-Empire-Ruthlessly-Exploited-India-20...
Apr 25, 2017 - It's a myth that British imperialism benefited one of its richest colony, India, when in ... A British man gets a pedicure from an Indian servant.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/.../legacy-of-british-rule-is-still-holding-india-back
Apr 11, 2017 - Evidence mounts that the former colony would have been better off without its master. ... Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. ... hear about India is whether British colonialism has been good or bad for ...
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com › Blogs › India Blogs
Apr 15, 2018 - Write for TOI Blogs ... Without strong data law, India will end up as a digital colony of US, Chinese firms ... The British East India Company forcefully colonised India and converted Indian weavers from producers of the world's .
STORY -- CURSE OF THE KOHINOOR DIAMOND
It was the property of kakatiya kings of south india 1200 AD
GOLCONDA FORT
The Khilji dynasty,commander Ulugh Khan in 1323 to defeated the Kakatiya king Prataparudra,and looted the kohinoor diamond
Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji.
Next it is found in the hands of kachwaha kings of city of gwalior ;inherited by tomara kings of 14th century
Kachwaha fort at rohtas
tomb of king sikander lodi at delhi
Tomara kings were defeated by sikander lodi sultan of delhi & the diamond looted ;
Next it comes in the hands of moghal emperors
moghal emperor akbar
In 1734 nader shah of persia (iran)looted it from moghals,after destroying delhi and agra
Nader shah of persia
Next Nader shah is killed and the diamond comes into the hands of ahmed shah abdali of Afganistan
Ahmad shah abdali OF Afganistan
N ext in 1830 the deposed king shah shuja of Afganistan flees with the diamond
Shuja Shah Durrani of Afghanistan
N ext it comes in the hand of punjab king maharaja Ranjit king and on his death
Maharajah Ranjit singhit came in the
hands of the british
Queen Victoria
[ Many of the owners of the diamond had violent deaths ]
Now it is in british hands from 1840's
FUTURE:-
LET
US WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT BECAUSE OF THE CURSE OF THE
KOHINOOR;EVERYTIME SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED;TO THE OWNER OF THE
DIAMOND WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF GETTING
THE DIAMOND.
EACH
OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER'S(KING'S) KINGDOMS WERE DESTROYED AND THEIR
EMPIRES ALSO WIPED OUT OR HAVE BECOME PART OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.
ALREADY BRITISH EMPIRE IS GONE .NOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 October 2012 Last updated at 23:47 GMT
By James Cook Scotland Correspondent, BBC News
Regions of United Kingdom
A legal process takes place before electors vote in the referendum
The legal authority to hold a referendum resides with the UK parliament at Westminster.
On
Monday, the prime minister David Cameron and Scotland's first minister
Alex Salmond signed an agreement which temporarily transfers that
authority to the Scottish Parliament, using an order under Section 30 of
the Scotland Act 1998.
The
order will be debated in the House of Commons and House of Lords before
going to the Privy Council for approval, which is likely to be given in
February.
The transfer of powers includes all detail relating to the referendum.
MPs and peers will have no subsequent role in the process.
Rather,
MSPs in the Scottish Parliament will debate the details of the poll -
including the question, the timing and the franchise - in a Referendum
Bill, which is expected to be introduced next spring.
Given
that the Scottish National Party has a majority at Holyrood, it seems
certain that the SNP policy of extending the vote to 16- and
17-year-olds will be approved.
The SNP's preferred timing for the poll, autumn 2014, is also likely to become law.
In
the meantime, it is expected that the Scottish government will formally
ask the Electoral Commission to "test" its proposed question.
Electoral Commission guidelinesIn assessing the referendum question it must....
- be easy to understand
- be to the point
- be unambiguous
- avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another
- and avoid misleading voters.
The process could take up to 12 weeks, after which the commission will submit a report to the Scottish government.
The recommendations are advisory, not binding, and ministers could theoretically choose to ignore them.
More
likely they could accept the report, which might include tweaks to the
the wording of the question, or they could suggest an alternative
question.
The
commission would then give its view on the alternative. If it had
already considered that alternative during the initial testing period
this could happen almost immediately, if not that process might have to begin anew.
Exactly how 16- and 17-year-olds would be enfranchised is complicated.
The challenge would be how to get them all on the electoral register in time for the poll.
The
register is at present geared towards ensuring that all eligible voters
are registered by the time they reach the voting age of 18.
The ballot paper question as proposed by the Scottish government earlier this year
Ordinarily
the electoral roll is canvassed annually, although individual voters
can register up to 11 working days before any poll.
Inconveniently, the 2014 canvas would have been held in the autumn, but changes being proposed in the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill presently being considered at Westminster would shift that year's canvas to April.
The age at which someone can first be listed on the register is complicated.
According to the Representation of the People Act 1983:
"A person otherwise qualified is ... entitled to be registered in a
register of parliamentary electors or local government electors if he
will attain voting age before the end of the period of 12 months
beginning with the 1st December next following the relevant date..."
In other words, not all 16- and 17-year-olds would be eligible under the present rules, which are reserved to Westminster.
-
A deal setting out terms for a Scottish independence referendum is signed by Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILL BRITAIN AS A NATION WILL ALSO DISAPPEAR AS PART OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
Can't return Kohinoor diamond to India: Britain
PTI
NOW AFTER BREXIT SCOTLAND IS KEEPING THE
EUROPEAN UNION FLAG[NOT THE BRITISH FLAG] ,WHILE NORTHERN IRELAND NOW
IS CLOSER TO IRELAND BECAUSE ENGLAND HAS ALLOWED IT FOR SPECIAL TRADE
RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPEAN UNION THROUGH IRELAND
WHAT REMAINS IS PLAIN OLD ENGLAND WITH POOR WALES, WITH NO EXIT POSSIBLE FOR WALES FROM ENGLAND
Scottish referendum deal struck
