Talk:Devolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Home rule

"Home rule", a term applicable in some areas, redirects here, which seems to be UK-centric. Especially bad since today's featured article about Greenland has a link to home rule. Nelson Ricardo 11:11, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution, Subsidiarity and Home Rule

I think that User:Deus Ex is confused about Devolition and Home Rule and has created an confusing article.

Devolution is about subsidiarity, in an agreed constitutional framework, with a central agreed sovereign body. Home rule is also has undertones of independence. For example in the early 1990s questions were raised in South Africa if a statute needed to be passed in Westminster to recognise and give legal authority of the new SA constitution. Mandela in the end decided that it was not necessary. If he had it would have seemed odd to put that act of parliament under Devolution, but it would have fitted under Home Rule, given the Irish precedence, quite nicely.

I think that these two articles need to be reconstituted as two separate articles as they were until User:Deus Ex combined them. Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aughavey 29 June 2005 14:24 (UTC) "This Act created the parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland — although the latter did not in reality function and Southern Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922."

This is entirely subjective since the South of Ireland had a huge Catholic / Nationalist majority which increased further as the Unionist & Protestant population left or were burned out. Whilst in Northern Ireland the sizeable Nationalist (largely Catholic) population did not support the state and some sought to destabilse it.

If "devolution" were a real word, there'd be a way to pronounce it, wouldn't there? -- D021317c 24 May 2006 21:44 (EDT)

[edit] Does the Irish Home Rule section really belong here?

The section on "History" is entirely dedicated to the Irish Home Rule question. As far as I can tell, this section is well-written and informative in and of itself, but there's nothing really explaining what it tells us about the general concept of Devolution, and all of its details can no doubt be found elsewhere. Surely this can be consolidated significantly? --Jfruh 6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

We Could Create an Irish Home Rule article, if one doesnt exist. I do agree that the paragraph is out of placeKeeperoftheseal 12:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight modifications

I have added the following:

===Movements Calling For Devolution=== Movements calling for devolution also exist in Cornwall and to a limited degree in England and some English Regions such as Wessex. and:

==External Links==

What do you think? Bretagne 44 15:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Bretangne 44. User:Lofty

[edit] Disambig

What would the pages listed on the proposed disambiguation page be? - cohesion | talk 09:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


'in Cornwall and to a limited degree in England'

Cornwall IS in England. I'm getting sick of seeing this on UK related articles. Whether Cornwall should be regarded as England or not, is a different matter. The fact is, it's in England. My personal opinion is that it's no less English than Devon but we should just stick with the facts.

[edit] Merge in of Devolved government

On 21 December 2005 Big Adamsky put templates on the two articles proposing a merge of Devolved government into this article. Seems a good idea to me. ...dave souza: talk 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Home rule already redirects here, and perhaps Decentralisation could also be incorporated into this article, as well? So as not to have slightly different articles repeat cited examples that are basically the same thing, more or less. The article might also be more properly renamed Political devolution, i.e. as a concept of Political science and/or Political geography. Any constructive thoughts on this? //Big Adamsky 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge earlier: there wasn't much in there that wasn't already here. Cwolfsheep 04:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New topic: What about the definition for Devolution of: Evolutionary processes occurring without natural selection?

The rules for devolution are simple. In a sense you create paradise by removing the survival of the fittest requirements. In other words, feed all members of a society, ensure all members have equal opportunities to prosper, and provide all members the opportunity to reproduce. Random mutation and random recombination without survival of the fittest should lead to devolution. Eventually all of the members of future generations would degenerate with the addition of non-beneficial mutations.

The probably of a negative mutation is far greater than the probability of a positive change especially in a complex organism. In a natural setting, the negative changes would be eliminated through natural selection and the positive changes would be reinforced. The eliminations would occur through illness, prey, starvation, reduced opportunities to procreate, etc. The reinforcement would occur through ease of gathering resources and more opportunities to procreate.

Civilization strives to level the genetic testing grounds by healing the sick, feeding the hungry, protecting the weak, and proving procreation choices to all. This is grandly civilized but it comes with a high price. Our tendency towards civilianization and humanity are creating an unhealthy environment for humankind. By removing the survival of the fittest side of the equation, all genetic combinations and mutations are equally incorporated into the genetic pool. The argument that “Devoltuion” can be bundled under evoltuion is flawed. The removal of natural selection which is key to the modern defintion of evolution is a concept in and of itself. Devolution is a logical name for this theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.174.255.100 (talk • contribs).

While these idea have something to do with Devolution (fallacy), they really seem to be along the lines of Eugenics#Galton's theory. ..dave souza, talk 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I reread Galton’s theory, but it does not go far enough. Galton supposed humanity would experience a “revision toward mediocrity” or a “regression towards the mean.” His theory was based on the rudimentary understanding of evolution of the time. His theory did not incorporation genetic mutation.

The theory of “Devolution” goes further. In addition to the tendency towards the mean caused by genetic recombination without natural selection, the entire distribution of characteristics will degrade due to mutation without natural selection. The gene pool will collect aberrant genes which would have been eliminated by natural selection under "normal" evolutionary processes. The end result will be something less than the average. Over a significant number of generations the result would be significantly less than the current average. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Young (talk • contribs).

Well, it still sounds like an extension of Galton's idea. More importantly, has someone of note published this in a mainstream publication? If you have a look at WP:NOR and linked policy and guideline pages, they make clear that by the nature of what Wikipedia's trying to do, we can only report on verifiable information, and can't put forward new ideas that haven't been published. ..dave souza, talk 23:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French examples

This page is linked to from the Segolene Royal page, so I'm thinking it would be good to add an example that's relevant for France? I mean, I don't think she's speaking about Ireland when she says she's for devolution...213.112.249.100 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/v/Talk%7EDevolution_a99f.html"