England now the most crowded country in Europe (bar Malta) thanks to mass immigration

[Kardan]

Err, they are countries but they are not sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states but are countries. Kind of like Catalonia in Spain or Flanders in Belgium. Whether they are called countries or states depends entirely on the set up of that country - for example Bavaria in Germany was a sovereign country within a Confederation but today is a non-sovereign state within a Federal Germany.

In the common sense of the term 'a country' most people mean a sovereign entity, ie a seat on the United Nations. But England is a country and has most of it's local policies such as services devolved on that level - so it makes sense to classify England seperate from the rest of the United Kingdom when talking about these things.



Well obviously, find me a News Agency that doesn't skew the news to fit their own agenda.



So if the population continues to grow, do you see a scenario unfolding whereby people move to the likes of the Outer Hebrides where there are no jobs, transport or land suitable for development rather than London and the South East of England?

Population growth and migration is not something that happens on an equal basis. The fact is that even if there is lot's of land up in Scotland for building, there are no jobs or anything there meaning that people WILL be forced to pay ever higher prices for ever smaller properties in London.

Disprove that if you can.

Not everyone would be forced, but I agree that population spread won't be equal, but I never denied that in the first place.

I'm simply saying that the article is misleading

It's also worth noting that population density itself isn't always a bad thing - it's whether or not the town/city/country can handle that population density.

[dbgtz]

Err, they are countries but they are not sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states but are countries. Kind of like Catalonia in Spain or Flanders in Belgium. Whether they are called countries or states depends entirely on the set up of that country - for example Bavaria in Germany was a sovereign country within a Confederation but today is a non-sovereign state within a Federal Germany.

In the common sense of the term 'a country' most people mean a sovereign entity, ie a seat on the United Nations. But England is a country and has most of it's local policies such as services devolved on that level - so it makes sense to classify England seperate from the rest of the United Kingdom when talking about these things.

I know it's a country, hence me saying "constituent country".

I don't get why you say England has most of it's policies devolved to that level, it's so damn skewed how you can judge that is beyond me.

Well obviously, find me a News Agency that doesn't skew the news to fit their own agenda.

I never said that, but it's most evident in tabloids.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not everyone would be forced, but I agree that population spread won't be equal, but I never denied that in the first place.

I'm simply saying that the article is misleading

There's nothing misleading about it.

England (the south especially) out of all similar sized countries is becoming vastly overpopulated. That's a fact. Now unless you are saying that people are going to move to the outer reaches of Scotland and Northern Ireland, or the Welsh Valleys, then we've got a pretty major planning problem on our hands haven't we? And more to the point, the people of England and Britain as a whole haven't been asked whether they want this huge rise in population density.

Don't you think we should be asked first?

It's also worth noting that population density itself isn't always a bad thing - it's whether or not the town/city/country can handle that population density.

Well that entirely depends. From a personal view it won't effect me much as I live in the north of England, it'll effect those who live in the south. It'll be a future of ever smaller houses with more expensive price tags, more roads with extreme traffic & pollution, power cuts, a London Underground which already is packed to the rafters and less green space/more competition for good schools and services.

Add to that the record of this country ever getting anything right on time or on budget since WWII... doesn't look good, does it? But I mean if those in the south think all of this is something they're happy to live with then fine, let them get on with it. But let's ask them first.

I know it's a country, hence me saying "constituent country".

I don't get why you say England has most of it's policies devolved to that level, it's so damn skewed how you can judge that is beyond me.

I agree it is skewed in that Welsh/Scottish and Northern Irish MPs can vote on English matters, agreed 100%. But England de facto makes most of it's policies via Westminster as areas such as education and health have been devolved to Wales, Ulster and Scotland... meaning that when laws are made in the HoP, they de facto apply to England.

[Kardan]

There's nothing misleading about it.

This might be your funniest statement of the year

If you actually look at the article, you will realise it's the biggest pile of bullcrap ever written.

Title: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country

Article actually mentions that Malta is Europe's most densely packed country (And that's excluding all the small places like Monaco, Vatican City etc.) - So not entirely sure how it can use the word 'officially' when it is downright wrong.

Article: England has become the most overcrowded major country in Europe.

The article uses stats of number of people expected to be in the country in 2015. So how it *has* become and not *will* become, I do not know.

And that's not even including the whole UK/England thing. It's one of the most misleading articles other than things off the Onion that I've ever seen

Heck, even you noticed that Malta was higher than England, and you put (bar Malta) in your title, so how you can say the article isn't misleading, I don't know.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This might be your funniest statement of the year

If you actually look at the article, you will realise it's the biggest pile of bullcrap ever written.

Title: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country

Article actually mentions that Malta is Europe's most densely packed country (And that's excluding all the small places like Monaco, Vatican City etc.) - So not entirely sure how it can use the word 'officially' when it is downright wrong.

Article: England has become the most overcrowded major country in Europe.

The article uses stats of number of people expected to be in the country in 2015. So how it *has* become and not *will* become, I do not know.

And that's not even including the whole UK/England thing. It's one of the most misleading articles other than things off the Onion that I've ever seen

Heck, even you noticed that Malta was higher than England, and you put (bar Malta) in your title, so how you can say the article isn't misleading, I don't know.

It's poorly written yes, but it doesn't disprove the fact that England out of the countries of Europe is now the most densely populated.

[Kardan]

It's poorly written yes, but it doesn't disprove the fact that England out of the countries of Europe is now the most densely populated.

But it does! Malta is more densely populated than England! And I'm pretty sure, right now, Holland is just ahead of England.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm pretty sure quoting a post that shows England not to be the most densely populated and saying "yes but England is the most densely populated: fact" is a bad idea

[James]

We'll live. It's not as if we're suffering from it. At the end of the day, we may be a small country but we still have plenty of countryside.

So much exaggeration.