EU referendum could be held as early as 2016

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can someone answer my question relating to the graph at the start of this thread??

Read the small print on the IMF graph I guess.

[The Don]

Then you don't understand the very constitutional nature of the state you live in. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland have no seperate say on any international matter in this country as the only real country (sovereign state in the proper sense) is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you want to turn this into a confederation, then sure go ahead and argue for it. But I want a say on it before you and Jimmy do.

They are still countries. Constituent countries. Again you are talking about the legality of it and ignoring every other aspect.

He did. At the start of 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

Oops, my bad.

- - - Updated - - -

What about if Yorkshire and Lancashire voted to stay, but Kent and Essex voted to leave? Or north/south for a more simplified example.



I have defended FPTP, not complained about it.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Clearly a constituent country composed of 5 million people has more of a claim than Kent. They are false comparisons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are still countries. Constituent countries. Again you are talking about the legality of it and ignoring every other aspect.

And the political realities of it.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Clearly a constituent country composed of 5 million people has more of a claim than Kent. They are false comparisons.

Greater London? 8m?

And that's the point really isn't it, where is the line drawn. And the answer is what i've already given you, the line has been drawn for a long time constitutionally that this is a unitary state and not a confederal or federal state. If you want to change that, then fair enough: but it would in turn require a referendum.

[The Don]

And the political realities of it.



Greater London? 8m?

And that's the point really isn't it, where is the line drawn. And the answer is what i've already given you, the line has been drawn for a long time constitutionally that this is a unitary state and not a confederal or federal state. If you want to change that, then fair enough: but it would in turn require a referendum.

Ah yes, the line you're choosing because it helps your point but I could quite easily choose a different line. Define long? 300 years isn't that long compared to how long the countries have been around. Either way we clearly disagree and you think that England should have the deciding say in the upcoming referendum but i'm pretty sure a majority of scott's would disagree with you. We'll see anyway, I can't see this going unchallenged

[dbgtz]

Ah yes, because we all share the same ideas and values! /s

If 70% of people from Scotland voted to remain within the EU but overall the UK voted to leave, would that be fair for the people of Scotland? They as a majority would have voted to remain within, but because they make up such a tiny percentage of the UK's population their vote would be ignored.

Hilarious that the people complaining about the FPTP system as being unfair because the majority are ignored are quite happy to do the same when they are part of the deciding minority.

If 70% of Yorkshire wanted to stay, should they go independent? If 70% of London wanted to stay, should they go independent? You could cut off parts of the UK anywhere and make this exact same argument. To compare this to the arguments about FPTP is ludicrous.

Part of a democracy is accepting that the vote will not always go your way.

[The Don]

If 70% of Yorkshire wanted to stay, should they go independent? If 70% of London wanted to stay, should they go independent? You could cut off parts of the UK anywhere and make this exact same argument. To compare this to the arguments about FPTP is ludicrous.

Part of a democracy is accepting that the vote will not always go your way.

Yorkshire and London are not countries that have their own separate legal systems and parliaments. The fact that you're equating them as equals is laughable.

[dbgtz]

Yorkshire and London are not countries that have their own separate legal systems and parliaments. The fact that you're equating them as equals is laughable.

So what you're saying is that because Scotland has a different legal system, they're somehow entitled to a greater voice than these people?

[The Don]

So what you're saying is that because Scotland has a different legal system, they're somehow entitled to a greater voice than these people?

No, i'm saying a country with devolved powers is entirely different from Yorkshire and that the comparison of the two is really stupid.

[AgnesIO]

Read the small print on the IMF graph I guess.

Missed the PPP bit. It won't be that high a GDP in 2017.

[dbgtz]

No, i'm saying a country with devolved powers is entirely different from Yorkshire and that the comparison of the two is really stupid.

I don't see how? Why aren't the Yorkshire people allowed their own voice like Scotland would under your proposal? Are you telling me that if the 2004 devolution referendums passed, this would magically give Yorkshire a greater say?

I really don't understand the logic that you and others say when it comes to Scotland. Complaining about how Scotland is being overwhelmed by England and Westminster as if it's some giant machine oppressing Scotland when, if anything, the people of England are the ones being screwed over right now with lower public spending by head (and ultimately less public sector employment) and less representation.

Sorry if that didn't make sense at points, I'm a bit tired so it's a bit :S