SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces she is to publish a second referendum bill next week

[-:Undertaker:-]

I mean, that's basically what I said. But there are ways I think Sweden and some others have sort of "got out of it".

Sweden is still bound by that law to eventually join. It has only stalled joining, for now. If banking, treasury and eventually political union goes ahead then Sweden will have no choice but to join the Euro: or leave the EU.

So you'd disagree with what Farage said about a second referendum before the result?

Yes. I set out before the referendum how I would react/respond in the event of losing. The campaign would have continued of course, but I would have accepted the result and waited until the next treaty change (10 yrs+).

The fight was never going to be over of course given the EU's direction towards eventual political union.

And what exactly are you referring to that remain has said that's turned out false?

The European Defence integration that was announced immediately after the referendum for one.

You could argue people were asked by the party they voted or even just the people they elected. You will probably be thinking when you see that "well it was in their manifesto", well perhaps people shouldn't then revote that party if the EU was such a big concern. The problem here though is ultimately FPTP, which I'm curious where you stand on that.

I support FPTP.

And remember, it was through votes and decades of campaigning that we secured the referendum. Ukip pressured the Conservatives via by-elections into holding a referendum. The Conservatives were then elected on a promise to hold a referendum which they did. In the past, various referendums on treaties have been promised but none were ever delivered. It was our turn to have our say and so we did, reflecting on 40 odd years of membership. We said out.

There's also no guarantee of a Norway option.

Good, and we're not going to get that as the Tory right will not accept it. I did not vote to continue to be subject to the Single Market rules of the EU nor did I vote to continue the jurisdiction of the ECJ or Freedom of Movement.

We'll have access to the Single Market in a Canadian style deal is my view.

Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? I don't want to leave because we actually have a fairly comfortable position in the EU; a rather large member with lots of exclusions which benefit us, and lots of inclusions which benefit us. Perhaps we can't make trade deals on our own, but we pretty much act as an almost access country for a lot of things, like being one of two native (if you count Ireland as native) English speaking countries in the EU which attracts thanks to English being the lingua franca and for financial services, which you certainly know about.

The rest of us don't see it like that.

Tell me, in all honesty, what's actually going to be different? What will you, in your day-to-day life, actually notice? Because that's the problem I see is that most people voted out won't see the difference, but those who voted in will. Want to go to France? Visa! Want to study in Switzerland for a year? Visa! Want to work in Spain? Lol, visa! Need that science funding? Oh, bad luck because it doesn't seem like the UK government has any intention to actually increase it! But that's probably a good thing for you since private = magically better in all ways. Let's not also forget we will probably see prices rise if May goes hard Brexit not just from the drop in the pound (which was going to happen anyway), but from the fact we won't be part of a larger market.

See, your side just doesn't understand it even now.

It was never about material things to me and many of the campaigners. There are things in life more important than money, more important than grants, more important than opt outs, more important than spending ten minutes to fill in a visa. This to me was about national sovereignty and my country's independence. Those are the ultimate values to me politically that underpin absolutely everything else, and I wanted it to matter when I went to the ballot box and voted.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a federal Europe and therefore the European project is something I cannot go along and do not want my country to go along with. I believe it will end in blood and economic ruin. I have said before that even if the EU was paying us or even me personally £350m a week to be in it, I would still have voted out. Had God appeared before me on the 22nd June and told me I was going to drop dead if I voted Leave then I would have still done it and gladly dropped dead.

I voted on virtues, values, history and identity. Nothing - money, politicians, events - could ever alter my choice. Generations of Britons and our Empire have voluntarily given their very lives for our sovereignty and national independence and I am not going to hand it away to avoid filling in a visa or to avoid a 2.5% trade tariff. Not not, not ever or in a thousand years.

[abc]

Breaking News: London Mayor Sajid Khan to hold a referendum to make London an independent country.

Oh wait, he won't. Why? Because even if I disagree with the result, we voted as a country and we must respect the decision (even though it was **** stupid).

Sadly Sturgeon just wants her name in the history books, she doesn't give a rats ass about Scotland. She is a typical politician. Gosh, soon we will have women running everything. Hillary Clinton, Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, the Queen... and people say women are discriminated against?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Mark]

As a Scot, please do not tar us all with the same brush due to the moron that is Nicola Sturgeon. The majority are not like her nor do they support independence. I wish they'd bloody get on and govern!

[Lucy]

Will be interesting to see what happens this time around, I expected this to come after our vote to leave the EU. I think she may be hoping they get to stay in the EU but if I recall they were told last time it doesn't work that way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sturgeon's game is obviously to demand what cannot be had as to force a referendum. Here's her latest trick for today:

.@NicolaSturgeon tells the SNP conference in Glasgow that the Scottish parliament should be independent https://t.co/bM5dUYJQxH

— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 15, 2016

Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish Government "will propose new powers to keep Scotland in the single market even if the UK leaves" #SNP16

— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) October 15, 2016

None of it makes constitutional sense what so ever. The United Kingdom is not a confederation or even a federal state, it is a unitary state. For Scotland to have an 'independent' Parliament would mean Scotland having the status of one of the German Kingdoms in the pre-German Empire - a sort of Holy Roman Empire set up. Now last time I checked, I and everyone else in this realm was not consulted on turning this country into a confederacy?

And as for the Single Market, again deluding herself. On Britain leaving the Single Market, we will no longer be subject to ECJ rulings or Freedom of Movement. In other words, she's advocating a hard border between Scotland and England in order to stay in the Single Market. You'd be forgiven for thinking 100% of Scottish Britons voted to stay in the EU when the reality is that 2 in 5 voted to Leave.

She's right about this though, we have taken over.

.@NicolaSturgeon says "the Cameroons have fallen to the Faragistas" https://t.co/n0JtlOlWfH

— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 15, 2016

[dbgtz]

Sweden is still bound by that law to eventually join. It has only stalled joining, for now. If banking, treasury and eventually political union goes ahead then Sweden will have no choice but to join the Euro: or leave the EU.

Whilst you're right, I do wonder how long they can hold off on it for.

Yes. I set out before the referendum how I would react/respond in the event of losing. The campaign would have continued of course, but I would have accepted the result and waited until the next treaty change (10 yrs+).

The fight was never going to be over of course given the EU's direction towards eventual political union.

Just out of curiosity, any evidence of this view I can see?

The European Defence integration that was announced immediately after the referendum for one.

Can't find evidence of Remain denying this would happen.

I support FPTP.

And remember, it was through votes and decades of campaigning that we secured the referendum. Ukip pressured the Conservatives via by-elections into holding a referendum. The Conservatives were then elected on a promise to hold a referendum which they did. In the past, various referendums on treaties have been promised but none were ever delivered. It was our turn to have our say and so we did, reflecting on 40 odd years of membership. We said out.

Decades that could have been avoided if UKIP and others had actually got proper representation in Parliament, not that I believe the EU would have been as big of an issue as it is today if we had PR.

Good, and we're not going to get that as the Tory right will not accept it. I did not vote to continue to be subject to the Single Market rules of the EU nor did I vote to continue the jurisdiction of the ECJ or Freedom of Movement.

We'll have access to the Single Market in a Canadian style deal is my view.

So what you actually are saying is we will have to take on some of the rules of the single market.

The rest of us don't see it like that.

Literally the first thing I say: Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? Which I believe I said because you kept assuming you knew why I voted remain.

See, your side just doesn't understand it even now.

It was never about material things to me and many of the campaigners. There are things in life more important than money, more important than grants, more important than opt outs, more important than spending ten minutes to fill in a visa. This to me was about national sovereignty and my country's independence. Those are the ultimate values to me politically that underpin absolutely everything else, and I wanted it to matter when I went to the ballot box and voted.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a federal Europe and therefore the European project is something I cannot go along and do not want my country to go along with. I believe it will end in blood and economic ruin. I have said before that even if the EU was paying us or even me personally £350m a week to be in it, I would still have voted out. Had God appeared before me on the 22nd June and told me I was going to drop dead if I voted Leave then I would have still done it and gladly dropped dead.

I voted on virtues, values, history and identity. Nothing - money, politicians, events - could ever alter my choice. Generations of Britons and our Empire have voluntarily given their very lives for our sovereignty and national independence and I am not going to hand it away to avoid filling in a visa or to avoid a 2.5% trade tariff. Not not, not ever or in a thousand years.

Except money isn't just about material goods. It's the food, which we import a lot of from other EU countries which there's no certainty of any kind of deal post-Brexit. It may not be about grants to you directly, but what happens if Westminster doesn't match current EU funding? We just take a massive dump on science? Oh well we may not be innovating but at least I have my sweet sovereignty which I can have with my Shreddies. I'd also argue you've very much understated how frustrating visas can be at times.

You keep going on about not liking a federal Europe, and that's fine I can see your positions in that and I believe if the EU were to evolve into that a lot of remainers would vote out also. But we're not there. We don't have to be there as it has been shown before since we essentially are in our own little club. The only reason we would go further is if we had someone who believed in it which is, you know, if we democratically under FPTP (lol) voted someone to do that.

I like how you reference the British Empire and sovereignty in the same sentence. It's also quite possible that no soldier actually gave a shit about all of that and rather were called under conscription! Or, in more modern cases, simply needed a job i.e. they needed money.

So let me ask, how has the EU in the current form affected British virtues, values, history and identity?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whilst you're right, I do wonder how long they can hold off on it for.

Not much longer I think. The EU knows that the long term survival of the Euro depends on the formation of a single treasury, subsidies from west to east in the currency zone and shared financial institutions. All of these of course will lead to the formation of shared political institutions aka a political union. Crunch time is coming.

And that's why I always said to those who claimed they did not want a federal Europe that it was time to disembark the train now rather than in the near future. Had we stayed on the integration train, extracting ourselves would have been much harder and messy ten years down the line when it moved to political union and we were de facto forced out as we could no longer go along with it. What would have been the purpose prolonging our stay on a train that was taking us to a destination we found unpalatable?

Just out of curiosity, any evidence of this view I can see?

On the referendum thread I suspect. I'm a realist. Treaty change would have been our next shot.

Can't find evidence of Remain denying this would happen.

Decades that could have been avoided if UKIP and others had actually got proper representation in Parliament, not that I believe the EU would have been as big of an issue as it is today if we had PR.

Ukip could have got into parliament had it fought by-elections properly as well as circumstances favouring them. Ukip is not the only group that has fought for this though, this has long been the work of the Tory backbenches too for decades: the Anti-Federalist League, the Bruges Group, Open Europe, the Maaschtricht Rebels....

The Guardian did an excellent article on the Tory side of the victory and the amount of work over the years that has gone into this if you're interested. Excellent article, very interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ght-you-brexit

So what you actually are saying is we will have to take on some of the rules of the single market.

In the sense that companies which trade with the Single Market will abide by EU standards, yes. But that's just like how now anything we sell to Australia abides by Australian standards. Or Japanese standards. Or Canadian standards. The current situation we have is where we're compelled to apply Single Market standards to all of our goods even if they're being sold in this country.

Literally the first thing I say: Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? Which I believe I said because you kept assuming you knew why I voted remain.

I think because like the bulk of Remainers you confuse the real purpose of the EU (politics) for economics.

"Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.” - Jean Monnet, Founding Father of European integration

I have never understood how the people advocating the EU often know so little about its origins & purpose.

Except money isn't just about material goods. It's the food, which we import a lot of from other EU countries which there's no certainty of any kind of deal post-Brexit. It may not be about grants to you directly, but what happens if Westminster doesn't match current EU funding? We just take a massive dump on science? Oh well we may not be innovating but at least I have my sweet sovereignty which I can have with my Shreddies. I'd also argue you've very much understated how frustrating visas can be at times.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been my point all along.

You keep going on about not liking a federal Europe, and that's fine I can see your positions in that and I believe if the EU were to evolve into that a lot of remainers would vote out also. But we're not there. We don't have to be there as it has been shown before since we essentially are in our own little club. The only reason we would go further is if we had someone who believed in it which is, you know, if we democratically under FPTP (lol) voted someone to do that.

Why is it then that despite the British public in poll after poll, decade after decade, promise after promise being told that no more powers are going to Brussels end up with more powers going to Brussels? Because we're being lied to. Read what Edward Heath wrote a few years after taking us into the EEC about the true intent. Or the secret FCO papers on the complications of joining the EEC. The salami slice method of having us "irrevocably" being pulled into a federal Europe was always the intent and remains the intent for the 27 countries who remain.

Type in almost any EU official's name next to "federal" and you'll get a quote on them advocating it.

I like how you reference the British Empire and sovereignty in the same sentence. It's also quite possible that no soldier actually gave a shit about all of that and rather were called under conscription! Or, in more modern cases, simply needed a job i.e. they needed money.

Actually, false. Britain herself only had to introduce conscription halfway through World War I for example and many patriotic people from all classes signed up to fight for King and Country. In World War II, Enoch Powell himself left his post at an Australian university to go and voluntarily sign up immediately. Across the Empire itself, many countries never introduced conscription - including India - of which many thousands gave their lives for us. Indeed, prior to the World Wars I am not even sure this country had conscription before in it's history.

Money cannot make any sane man go over that trench to face a living Hell. Only God, the nation and family.

So let me ask, how has the EU in the current form affected British virtues, values, history and identity?

Well let me put it like this, can you name a similar constitutional/political development in the last 500 or more years that has applied to our kingdom in the way that European Union law and politics has done? Anybody who understands the political and legal history of this realm understands that EEC/EU membership was truly revolutionary on constitutional terms.

As Professor Anthony King observed in his book The British Constitution: “Not only did Parliament cease to be sovereign, Britain itself ceased to be an old-fashioned sovereign state. The fact of being a member of the EU permeates almost the whole of the British government – to a far greater extent than most Britons seem to realise.”

I cannot since the break with Rome under King Henry VIII think of a comparable 'tumour' on our constitution.

[dbgtz]

>March 2015

Ukip could have got into parliament had it fought by-elections properly as well as circumstances favouring them. Ukip is not the only group that has fought for this though, this has long been the work of the Tory backbenches too for decades: the Anti-Federalist League, the Bruges Group, Open Europe, the Maaschtricht Rebels....

The Guardian did an excellent article on the Tory side of the victory and the amount of work over the years that has gone into this if you're interested. Excellent article, very interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ght-you-brexit

It would not have had adequate representation in Parliament from a couple of by elections. That's like saying their 1 current seat represents them well and is totally just. I honestly can't believe you think this is fine yet having a small majority of voters (but not a majority of the electorate) pull us into this unknown state is fine? We probably wouldn't even need rebellious back benchers if we had a better voting system.

In the sense that companies which trade with the Single Market will abide by EU standards, yes. But that's just like how now anything we sell to Australia abides by Australian standards. Or Japanese standards. Or Canadian standards. The current situation we have is where we're compelled to apply Single Market standards to all of our goods even if they're being sold in this country.

But you also can't deny it probably is cheaper in the long run anyway, producing the same thing for a large market rather than slightly altered things for smaller markets?

I think because like the bulk of Remainers you confuse the real purpose of the EU (politics) for economics.


I have never understood how the people advocating the EU often know so little about its origins & purpose.

And yet again you assume my view and my knowledge You realise just proposing points like that actually weakens what you say since you basically just end up arguing with yourself. And you say all of that, but it didn't take me long to find that he didn't say the quote and is actually from a book on Europe.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been my point all along.

Except FPTP doesn't really work when there is more than 2 parties to choose from, so no it's not that easy to vote for change. MPs get elected without even majority support in most constituencies.

Why is it then that despite the British public in poll after poll, decade after decade, promise after promise being told that no more powers are going to Brussels end up with more powers going to Brussels? Because we're being lied to. Read what Edward Heath wrote a few years after taking us into the EEC about the true intent. Or the secret FCO papers on the complications of joining the EEC. The salami slice method of having us "irrevocably" being pulled into a federal Europe was always the intent and remains the intent for the 27 countries who remain.

Type in almost any EU official's name next to "federal" and you'll get a quote on them advocating it.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been your point all along.
You've basically just proved it's not easy to vote for change.

Actually, false. Britain herself only had to introduce conscription halfway through World War I for example and many patriotic people from all classes signed up to fight for King and Country. In World War II, Enoch Powell himself left his post at an Australian university to go and voluntarily sign up immediately. Across the Empire itself, many countries never introduced conscription - including India - of which many thousands gave their lives for us. Indeed, prior to the World Wars I am not even sure this country had conscription before in it's history.

Money cannot make any sane man go over that trench to face a living Hell. Only God, the nation and family.

True, but it was present for all of WW2. I think even the fact it was introduced showed a lot of people would rather live than cared otherwise. Everyone had their own motivations. I'd love for you to say that Indians died for us in the world wars on say /r/india, I'm sure they'd love your almost romanticised view. You are making rather basic views on something that is far more complex.

Well let me put it like this, can you name a similar constitutional/political development in the last 500 or more years that has applied to our kingdom in the way that European Union law and politics has done? Anybody who understands the political and legal history of this realm understands that EEC/EU membership was truly revolutionary on constitutional terms.



I cannot since the break with Rome under King Henry VIII think of a comparable 'tumour' on our constitution.

Depends how you defined a constitutional/political development. I'd say the whole enlightenment/industrial revolution changed a lot. The masses of commoners actually starting to get real input. Yeah I'd say that was pretty big.

[-:Undertaker:-]

>March 2015

?

It would not have had adequate representation in Parliament from a couple of by elections. That's like saying their 1 current seat represents them well and is totally just. I honestly can't believe you think this is fine yet having a small majority of voters (but not a majority of the electorate) pull us into this unknown state is fine? We probably wouldn't even need rebellious back benchers if we had a better voting system.

Ukip simply did not do well enough to win seats. It can be done though, look at the Liberal Democrats.

As for the result, it is not a small majority of voters. No party or mandate in British electoral history has done over 17 million votes as the Leave campaign did. I can't account for those who didn't bother to vote nor can you. The government presented the referendum to us, promised to implement the result and the country voted Leave on the highest level of turnout in our history. I can't believe you think it's fine to somehow dismiss that mandate.

But you also can't deny it probably is cheaper in the long run anyway, producing the same thing for a large market rather than slightly altered things for smaller markets?

Even if it were cheaper it wouldn't be an argument for handing over the regulatory system of your whole economy to others. In any case, I don't believe it is cheaper: European countries are much more protectionist than Britain (hence external tariffs the Single Market applies to the rest of the world) and much more a fan of making regulations and rules to protect their industries (see France). Britain has always had a much more free market philosophy so it makes sense that we can regulate to our own needs rather than those of French farmers and Italian industry.

And yet again you assume my view and my knowledge You realise just proposing points like that actually weakens what you say since you basically just end up arguing with yourself. And you say all of that, but it didn't take me long to find that he didn't say the quote and is actually from a book on Europe.

He did say the quote - despite what EU federalist Richard Corbett says - and there's tonnes more out there even if that were to be false. Heath, Monnet, Spinelli, Schuman, Delors and countless others. Here's another.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

"There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection…. The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit." ~ Jean Monnet's Speech to the French National Liberation Committee (5 August 1943)

The founders, the treaty itself which states "ever closer union" and everything they've done since literally could not be more clear. This is what I mean by EU advocates seemingly not even knowing the principles, history and motivations behind the very thing they support. At least an admitted EU federalist (rare, although they do exist) has an idea about what he is arguing for no matter how wrong he may be.

Except FPTP doesn't really work when there is more than 2 parties to choose from, so no it's not that easy to vote for change. MPs get elected without even majority support in most constituencies.

The problem with proportional representation is that you get even less change than under FPTP. Our current electoral system works excellent when there's a difference between the two major parties: something we've been lacking in the last two decades although it is now obviously changing. Under proportional representation, often a government that has just been voted out ends up back in government despite being absolutely loathed as it is needed to make up the numbers in forming a Coalition.

My view is that FPTP is much more healthy for democracy and even helps avert potential revolution.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been your point all along.

You've basically just proved it's not easy to vote for change.

Whoever said anything would be easy? We fought for it though and we won.

True, but it was present for all of WW2. I think even the fact it was introduced showed a lot of people would rather live than cared otherwise. Everyone had their own motivations. I'd love for you to say that Indians died for us in the world wars on say /r/india, I'm sure they'd love your almost romanticised view. You are making rather basic views on something that is far more complex.

Whoever said the post-independence and often Hindu-nationalist Indians of today represent the Indians of the early 1900's who marched into battle in imperial uniform? It's a totally different political culture, although that being said I doubt middle-class affluent Indians on Reddit are that reflective of India even today. That doesn't negate the fact that soldiers from the Raj volunteered to fight for King, the Empire and Britain and over 70,000 lost their lives in that sacrifice.

As I said, it takes more than money - unless you worship Mammon - to walk into bullets and almost certain death. Human beings are complex, and I would argue that there are virtues worth dying for unless you're a cultural desert. Nationhood is certainly one of them, as is family, and a belief in God (to perform a moral duty) doesn't hurt either.

Depends how you defined a constitutional/political development. I'd say the whole enlightenment/industrial revolution changed a lot. The masses of commoners actually starting to get real input. Yeah I'd say that was pretty big.

I mean in terms of sovereignty, self-government and external influence over this realm.

[dbgtz]

?

I was asking for something from the official Remain campaign, not what one remain backer has said.

Ukip simply did not do well enough to win seats. It can be done though, look at the Liberal Democrats.

As for the result, it is not a small majority of voters. No party or mandate in British electoral history has done over 17 million votes as the Leave campaign did. I can't account for those who didn't bother to vote nor can you. The government presented the referendum to us, promised to implement the result and the country voted Leave on the highest level of turnout in our history. I can't believe you think it's fine to somehow dismiss that mandate.

But it got like what 3+million votes? And you honestly think that's only good enough for one seat? Are you a joke? Somehow it's OK for me to suggest ignoring the referendum since it's only advisory but screw those 3 million who get next to no real representation on a daily basis.
Honestly the fact you're using raw figures is also a huge joke and I can't even tell if you're doing it intentionally or not.

Even if it were cheaper it wouldn't be an argument for handing over the regulatory system of your whole economy to others. In any case, I don't believe it is cheaper: European countries are much more protectionist than Britain (hence external tariffs the Single Market applies to the rest of the world) and much more a fan of making regulations and rules to protect their industries (see France). Britain has always had a much more free market philosophy so it makes sense that we can regulate to our own needs rather than those of French farmers and Italian industry.

Except, as you said yourself, we would have to take their laws into account anyway. At the end of the day, neither of us are economists nor have I done adequate research into this so I won't bother refuting further.

He did say the quote - despite what EU federalist Richard Corbett says - and there's tonnes more out there even if that were to be false. Heath, Monnet, Spinelli, Schuman, Delors and countless others. Here's another.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet



The founders, the treaty itself which states "ever closer union" and everything they've done since literally could not be more clear. This is what I mean by EU advocates seemingly not even knowing the principles, history and motivations behind the very thing they support. At least an admitted EU federalist (rare, although they do exist) has an idea about what he is arguing for no matter how wrong he may be.

"He did say the quote" he says with no proof.
In that second quote you sent, not only was that well before anything even existed, it explicitly states "form a federation or a European entity". Arguably, the EU falls under "Europeon entity" so this doesn't really support your theory of further integration.
I also want to say that just because someone said something a long time ago, doesn't make it applicable to today. Surprisingly, things change.

The problem with proportional representation is that you get even less change than under FPTP. Our current electoral system works excellent when there's a difference between the two major parties: something we've been lacking in the last two decades although it is now obviously changing. Under proportional representation, often a government that has just been voted out ends up back in government despite being absolutely loathed as it is needed to make up the numbers in forming a Coalition.

My view is that FPTP is much more healthy for democracy and even helps avert potential revolution.

Except, and I believe you like to make this point, there's very little difference between the Labour we saw in recent government (i.e. New Labour) and the Conservatives, so where is this change you speak of?

I also want to point out honestly how shitty your argument is. If that government was so loathed they wouldn't get votes in the first place and thus would have no chance in government. If they are needed to actually make up coalition numbers then yes there is change in the government that you seem to be complaining about since the "big player" changes. Imagine how different it would have been if the Lib Dems and Conservatives switched places during 2010-2015.

I'm honestly baffled about someone who in this very thread is complaining about how ignoring he "will of the people" is such a bad thing, but ignoring what is almost certainly a majority of people during an election cycle is OK because you have a belief, with absolutely no historical backing, FPTP "averts potential revolution". And then, the cheek of it, says it's more democratic even though it is almost certainly less so since more people get ignored in elections!

Whoever said anything would be easy? We fought for it though and we won.

Right but you said to me if I didn't like what the government was doing then I should vote for change, which is presumably what you did with UKIP but that ultimately didn't work so you had to revert to other means. You fought, sure, but you didn't get change in government is the whole point. I'd also sort of argue UKIP had very little to do with the actual referendum coming about too (though probably did impact the actual result), but that's a rather different topic.

Whoever said the post-independence and often Hindu-nationalist Indians of today represent the Indians of the early 1900's who marched into battle in imperial uniform? It's a totally different political culture, although that being said I doubt middle-class affluent Indians on Reddit are that reflective of India even today. That doesn't negate the fact that soldiers from the Raj volunteered to fight for King, the Empire and Britain and over 70,000 lost their lives in that sacrifice.

As I said, it takes more than money - unless you worship Mammon - to walk into bullets and almost certain death. Human beings are complex, and I would argue that there are virtues worth dying for unless you're a cultural desert. Nationhood is certainly one of them, as is family, and a belief in God (to perform a moral duty) doesn't hurt either.

I'm not going to continue this assumption of peoples motives.

I mean in terms of sovereignty, self-government and external influence over this realm.

So basically, exactly where it suits you.
But perhaps in the last 500 years, the Scottish, Irish and maybe Welsh might like to have a word with you.