EU referendum could be held as early as 2016

[The Don]

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

Countries have a greater sense of self-determination. Up until only 300 years ago Scotland was an independent sovereign nation that made every decision for itself. Your comparison of Scotland to Yorkshire is false as there is a massive difference between a region of a country, and an actual country. Whilst Scotland is a part of the UK it is also a country in its own right, Yorkshire is not. Scotland has devolved powers because the people there are entitled to a basic level of self-goverance due to these differences. The people in Scotland generally hold a more favourable view towards the EU than people in England ("A study published last week by Durham University and the University of East Anglia found that while voters in the majority of constituencies in England would vote to leave the EU only four seats in Scotland backed an exit." source) . Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one). Despite what you say about people in England not being part of some giant hivemind it's patently clear that there are distinct regional differences between Scotland and England and for population reasons it is not fair for it be one vote as clearly their vote won't matter because England has 10 times their population. Yes, there are differences between Yorkshire and the rest of England but Scotland is clearly not comparable with Yorkshire or any large cities for legislative, historical and the aforementioned factors.

[scottish]

I'll wait 10 years and see how it plays out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don; still doesn't understand that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such right to vote on international matters. Each home nation of this realm had no say on whether we joined NATO or whether we would leave tomorrow, and that applies just the same to the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organisation or withdrawal from the European Union. To pretend otherwise defies history, international relations as well as the very constitution of the country. The entire working of the United Kingdom as a unitary state is that decisions are taken by Westminster comprised of the 650 British constituencies.

Nowhere does it state or has ever been stated or implied that a certain % of Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish constituencies must agree to legislation in order for it to pass into British law. It is not a federal state, it is not a confederacy and we do not have a Senate or Council of nations like the United States or now defunct Yugoslavia. There's fundamentally one nation at Westminster and that is what you accept with being in the United Kingdom because that is the Union.

It's a fantasy of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP so she can have another shot at Scottish indenpedence/use it as a bargaining tool. Nothing more.

[The Don]

@The Don; still doesn't understand that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such right to vote on international matters. Each home nation of this realm had no say on whether we joined NATO or whether we would leave tomorrow, and that applies just the same to the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organisation or withdrawal from the European Union. To pretend otherwise defies history, international relations as well as the very constitution of the country. The entire working of the United Kingdom as a unitary state is that decisions are taken by Westminster comprised of the 650 British constituencies.

It's a fantasy of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP so she can have another shot at Scottish indenpedence/use it as a bargaining tool. Nothing more.

"Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one)"

- - - Updated - - -

Dan it says on the governments website that the UK is composed of four separate countries. You can make up definitions of countries all day long but to argue that Scotland isn't a country is just ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one)"

Then you could easily apply that to if the United Kingdom decided to leave the Commonwealth, OECD, NATO, the G20, the World Bank or United Nations. Indeed why not extend it to absolutely anything? The nuclear deterrence, declarations of war or even agreement to trade deals. If you accept such a premise, again completely unfounded in our history, then you are asking for a fundamental reshaping of our state. Upon joining these bodies, each nation was not consulted because the United Kingdom is a unitary state with one sovereign government: it is not a Confederation like Switzerland or the former German Confederation.

And that in itself would require a referendum.

Dan it says on the governments website that the UK is composed of four separate countries. You can make up definitions of countries all day long but to argue that Scotland isn't a country is just ridiculous.

'Countries' (a loose term anyway) are irrelevant on the international stage. It is sovereign states which are actual countries in the proper sense.

The assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast on the international stage are no more sovereign than Barnsley Town Council is. It's especially the case under the British constitution where our parliament is sovereign and there's no written constitution: any power is lent outwards by Westminster and at her will.

In a Confederation this is different as each political unit is seen as retaining its own sovereignty, or at least partially. See early Germany or Canada.

[The Don]

Then you could easily apply that to if the United Kingdom decided to leave the Commonwealth, OECD, NATO, the G20, the World Bank or United Nations. Indeed why not extend it to absolutely anything? The nuclear deterrence, declarations of war or even agreement to trade deals. If you accept such a premise, again completely unfounded in our history, then you are asking for a fundamental reshaping of our state.

And that in itself would require a referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

You're ignoring the point. Scotland has control over those aspects of their country whether you like it or not. Leaving the EU affects those sectors, ultimately it should be up to Scotland and not England as to whether they remain within the EU as that falls into economic development and education. You're also back to arguing the legality of it all because it's obvious that morally they should have the final say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Leaving the EU affects those sectors, ultimately it should be up to Scotland and not England as to whether they remain within the EU as that falls into economic development and education. You're also back to arguing the legality of it all because it's obvious that morally they should have the final say.

No it isn't the slippery slope argument at all, that is a fact. You have absolutely no historical examples to back yours and Sturgeon's assertions on this.

Here are mine. The United Kingdom joining NATO was absolutely fundamental to our security policy and the security of Scotland during the post-war era during the Cold War, yet Scotland was not consulted as though it were a separate political unit and nor was England. And the same applies to when we joined the United Nations (key to foreign policy), the World Trade Organisation (key to trade) or the World Bank and IMF (key to financial security).

I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon would love to hold a referendum every five minutes over any of these issues, but the facts are against her.

You're ignoring the point. Scotland has control over those aspects of their country whether you like it or not.

Only due to the will of the Westminster parliament, which can extend or withdraw power over these sectors at will just as it could with Barnsley Town Council. In addition, under the Westminster constitution strictly speaking Parliament actually has the power to abolish the Scottish 'parliament', Barnsley Town Council and the borders of the entity it calls 'Wales' should it wish to do so as it is the holder of ultimate sovereignty and not a constitutional document like in America.

In any case, that's a slight diversion which ignores the point that neither England or Scotland has control or say over foreign policy or international treaties.

[The Don]

Here are mine. The United Kingdom joining NATO was absolutely fundamental to our security policy and the security of Scotland during the post-war era during the Cold War, yet Scotland was not consulted as though it were a separate political unit and nor was England. And the same applies to when we joined the United Nations (key to foreign policy), the World Trade Organisation (key to trade) or the World Bank and IMF (key to financial security).

Only due to the will of the Westminster parliament, which can extend or withdraw power over these sectors at will just as it could with Barnsley Town Council. In addition, under the Westminster constitution strictly speaking Parliament actually has the power to abolish the Scottish 'parliament', Barnsley Town Council and the borders of the entity it calls 'Wales' should it wish to do so as it is the holder of ultimate sovereignty and not a constitutional document like in America.

In any case, that's a slight diversion which ignores the point that neither England or Scotland has control or say over foreign policy or international treaties.

Scotland has been given more powers (and a parliament) since all of your examples making them void. Yes, Westminster has supremacy and could remove all of their powers and whilst we're at it the Queen could dismiss the Prime Minister and declare war on China but neither of these things will happen. Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Scotland has been given more powers (and a parliament) since all of your examples making them void. Yes, Westminster has supremacy and could remove all of their powers and whilst we're at it the Queen could also dissolve parliament but neither of these things will happen. Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

It doesn't make them void as there is historical precedent already on this: the Northern Ireland Parliament (1920s to 1970s). The existence of such a 'parliament' (again, subject to the remit of the Westminster parliament) did not turn the United Kingdom into a confederal state whereby each of the two political units needed to agree for an international treaty to be signed. The decision is solely up to Westminster and Westminster alone. It's the same today in 2015.

And on a side note, you say neither of these things (your examples) will happen and maybe not now, but the genius in having an unwritten constitution with sovereignty in parliament is that is it so adaptable hence why we've avoided as a country so many revolutionary waves. After all, the Northern Ireland Parliament no longer exists today after being abolished in the 1970s and the Queen dismissed Her Australian Government in 1975. It's very flexible.

[FlyingJesus]

Morally a country of 64 million people shouldn't be forced to pay for referendums and all sorts because of what 2.5 million think