1946, Zurich - Winston Churchill: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe".

It was the intention of Churchill that a United States of Europe would not include the UK, with the UK being part of a strong Commonwealth of Nations. However as you like to point out, the UK severed some ties with Commonwealth nations when the people decided to jump into bed with the European project... which was always headed towards a "United States of Europe" as mentioned by Churchill less than 30 years before this.

It was quite clear where a "yes" vote would lead. I think the Scottish peasants of 1707 might have been happy about being bailed out by England, it certainly helped their descendants out of a tight spot. Has Scotland repaid that yet, along with interest? Oh wait, they're still getting more than their population would suggest from England due to things like the Barnett formula.

Barnett formula? Anyone not happy with what Scotland, Wales and NI receive then get rid of it; English MP's are in the majority but - "It has been retained by Conservative Governments of 1979 to 1997 under Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major, by Labour Governments after 1997 under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and the current coalition Government of David Cameron, with the Government declaring its intention to continue to use it as the basis for funding the three devolved governments."

The Scottish 'peasants' did not get a say in the matter when the Act of Union was drawn up; others are saying the people don't get a say in whether the UK is in or out of the EU; I just drew the comparison.

Interesting albeit old article here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki...itish_Politics

Talks of 15 member states; now 28.

Exactly right, although it is clear the UK still punches well above its weight and is still rightly considered a world power. We will do just fine on our own.

Thing is to extricate the country from the EU will take a lot of guts and determination, both of which have been lacking for a long time now. Expect the UK to trundle along the EU path all the way to the bitter end.

And neither did the peasants of the Kingdom of England get a say in the Act of Union - however the difference now is the Scottish peasants of 2014 do get a say on breaking up that Union, whereas the English peasants (and civilised south) of 2014 do not get a say.

In regards to the EU, as I pointed out earlier (and have elsewhere on this forum) there was a vote on the UK joining what was then the EEC. A move to a "kind of United States of Europe" was always on the cards, something that Churchill among others talked about (an apparently beloved politician on here who is often referred to). It should have been quite clear to those voting what direction things would head. Either that, or they were not really concentrating.

So by your logic the English electorate should have had a say in both whether the Act of Union came into being and also should decide whether Scotland should have independence or not? Hmm and Brits should also by that logic vote in any Australian referendum on a republic because it's their crown that the link with is being discussed? (I realise Australia is not in the UK but the principle is the same - to use an analogy, you think the parent decides whether the child should have its independence?)

Scotland has a devolved parliament, the SNP is in power and they have decided to have a referendum which will be voted on by Scottish voters. Where's the problem with that? Devolution was given to S, W and NI in the hope that this would be enough and not threaten the continued existence of the UK. I think the No vote will prevail and I'm neutral on the issue at this stage but I don't deny the right to decide. The previous referendum was loaded and wasn't a simple majority in favour.

Churchill keeps cropping up. That will be the one who changed parties a number of times, resigned from cabinet a number of times and who said India shall never have independence and treated Gandhi as a terrorist trying to break up the Empire? Him of 'we shall fight them on the beaches'. I picked 2 Tory papers as recent research shows:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/423...against-Hitler

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-academic.html

It was you who stated that the Scottish people did not get a say in the matter of the Acts of Union - I said was that the English people also did not get a say in the matter. If you read what I said, the phrase I used was "breaking up that Union" - I used neutral language when it comes to any constituent country of that Union. The Union was created by separate Acts (Union with Scotland Act, and Union with England Act) so it would seem logical that the preference of a break up of that union should be from mutual agreement if possible. Of course, when we're talking about the Kingdom of England in respect to the Acts of Union, it also includes the now devolved constituent country of Wales. That's a ridiculous conclusion to make for a few reasons:

• Australia and the UK are separate sovereign nations, whereas England and Scotland are within one sovereign nation.
• The crown itself is not the same as you suggest. The person who acts as Head of State in both countries is shared, however the legal position of monarch is not. The Queen of Australia is not the same position as the Queen of the UK.
• Returning it to the UK, there is no "parent" or "child" nation. It was a union of two kingdoms.

Well it was Churchill who made that speech talking of a need of a kind of United States of Europe. I couldn't say it was anyone else, because as far as that particular speech that I referred to, it was him.

But the UK is governed by a Conservative and UNIONIST Party and the Labour Party is opposed to Independence so it would never be on the cards if it was left to Westminster Parliament. It is only because the SNP is in power in Scotland (with a very healthy majority) that the referendum is on the agenda and you don't need your partner's permission to divorce (if you don't think the parent and child analogy holds).

Referendums are not binding in the UK parliamentary system (only advisory) and the jury is out on whether a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum is binding. David Cameron was toying with a UK Referendum on the question but hasn't gone ahead with it. Salmond believes if a Yes vote comes to pass then Westminster couldn't ignore it. All hypothetical, No looks likely on 18/9/14.

I was being scurrilous with references to Republic and Australia. I've still not forgotten that it was the Queen's representative (GG Sir John Kerr who denied the ruling party 'supply' in the Senate like the Republican Tea Party in USA last week) who brought down the Whitlam Government in the 70's.

In the Scottish parliament there are 129 seats, the SNP currently holds 65 of those. That is not a "very healthy majority" - it is only a majority by the minimum amount. It was Malcolm Fraser's opposition that brought down the Whitlam government - it was them who refused supply in the Senate. What happened regarding double dissolution was the safeguard in place in the Westminster system - I'm sure you wouldn't want a government just to shut up shop like in the US system, and is happening now? That would be very damaging to the economy and the country in a diplomatic sense.

Dissolving parliament, having an election allows for the block to be hopefully moved. Of course in the case you mention, Fraser's approach in opposition regarding this was dirty politics - however having an escape hatch from it is better than the alternative.

And we'd no longer be prohibited from being self sufficient in milk!

There are 'list' MSP's who can get in with a small % of the vote - 56 of them and those who are voted on first past the post - 73. The SNP doesn't need a coalition like Dave and can govern in its own right. They started out with 69 seats at the last election (reduced by subsequent by-elections) and have more seats than Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Greens and Independent combined. 65 is more than 50% of the seats. I call that a healthy working majority don't you? Can you see every opposition MSP getting together to vote on any issue?

Don't minimise Baron Kerr's role in the Whitlam dismissal.

129 seats; 129 / 2 = 64.5; 65 is the minimum required for a majority. As indicated by yourself, they have already lost 4 seats since the last election.

I would not say that is a very healthy majority, as you put it. The SNP also only achieved a majority due to anti-Labour voting largely because of Scotland's own Gordon Brown. Don't minimise Malcolm Fraser's role in the dismissal.

Don't minimise Gough Whitlam's role in the dismissal.

To concentrate on just one person and pin the blame entirely on them (or what they were representing) is misleading at best. Problem is, all too often the blame is pinned on Kerr and/or the office of Governor General - do not forget the politics going on in the chambers that led to the Governor General dismissing the government, there would have been no dismissal if what went on in the House and Senate (and behind the scenes) hadn't happened like it did.

Thanks for the arithmetic lesson and for explaining why people voted the way they did. For whatever reasons the SNP are in power and took the opportunity to pursue their raison d'etre.

We all know how a company and a parliament can be controlled with a minority block of votes. SNP have an absolute majority over every other party which is quite a rare thing these days.

I'm not putting all the blame on one person give me more credit - I lived through all the comings and goings. Kerr later disputed Fraser's recollection of events anyway and Kerr didn't inform Whitlam of his intentions in case the Queen was asked to dismiss him as GG.

Getting back to the original thread it looks like the Conservative hierarchy have scuppered any attempts to have a referendum on the EU until at least after the next election. Currently trailing Labour by about 4 points, has been 7 and higher, they will be doing well to hang on in 2015. They only have 1/3 of the public's voting intentions with Ed Milliband's Labour on 37% - which shows how poorly they are perceived because Millibrand has very low public approval).

Glad you appreciated it. Indeed, the 2015 election will probably produce either another no over all majority, or a Labour victory. If the result is no over all majority, Cameron as the sitting PM could attempt a minority government without being in a coalition.

Choosing between Cameron and Miliband will be not much different to the recent choice in Australia between Abbott and Rudd - more of a matter of deciding who is "less worse" than it is choosing which one you want as PM. Australia got that one wrong, hopefully the UK won't.