Slashdot Mirror
Scotland Votes No To Independence
An anonymous reader sends this news from the BBC:
Scotland voters decided to remain part of the United Kingdom on Friday, rejecting independence in a historic referendum. The decision prevented a rupture of a 307-year union with England, bringing a huge sigh of relief to the British political establishment. Scots voted 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent against independence in a vote that saw an unprecedented turnout. "Like millions of other people, I am delighted," Prime Minister David Cameron said in a speech outside 10 Downing Street on Friday morning. "It would have broken my heart to see our United Kingdom come to an end." Cameron promised new powers for Scotland in the wake of the vote, but also warned that millions of voices in England must also be heard, calling for a "balanced settlement" that would deliver more power to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Everyone seems to have lost here. The Scottish will get screwed when the politicians renege on all the promises they made, and the rUK will get screwed when the politicians half deliver those promises at their expense. The question won't go away and will come back round in 15-20 years. The UK will as a whole remain very conservative and averse to change.
I'm not Scottish but I feel very sad today.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In any other part of the world the next step would be riots followed by civil war.
Mostly the reaction seems to be a big "oh well" and a "let's move on".
But nobody is taking my Whiskey from me!
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Didn't South Park point out that 1 in 4 Americans are idiots?
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
You know that jus primae noctis has been abolished, right? Scotland is already free. They are part of the free country which is the UK. They vote for members of the Parliament in London and have their own Scottish Assembly. The YES vote blew it by failing to have any plan for the currency and stubbornly insisting they could join the EU when the message from Brusells was quite clearly ... no, you can't, not for years, and not until you renounce all the special treatment the UK squeezed out.
I wonder if this will silence or encourage the separatists that want Quebec to leave Canada?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Seriously, England said that they would do better. Hopefully, they will mean it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, that's it, there was a definitely a conspiracy. It couldn't simply be that the people of Scotland were asked democratically and clearly what their wishes are, and people voted. The vote wasn't an overwhelming endorsement of King Salmond and Queen Sturgeon, so it must have been underhanded in some manner. We can't possibly simply accept reality here; if Braveheart taught us nothing, it's that the people of Scotland are all ardent Nationalists who care about nothing else but...THEIR...FREEEEDOM!
The Scottish Nationalists lost. Scotland has decided it's better off as part of the UK. Get over it.
The conspiracy theorists have already started with their claims of vote rigging.
For the UK - they remain united.
For Scotland - they get greater autonomy without the pain of going it alone.
For the Scottish people - their heritage and nationality received much attention (hell I didn't know there WAS a Scottish flag before this). They proved them selves to be paragons of peaceful demonstration and democracy.
For the Britons - the Welsh and Irish nationalities in the UK benefit from greater recognition as well. The English too!
The UK is an amazing and interesting union - and all should be proud to be a part. And who knows... maybe the next generation will decide Yes.
Such is the take of this American anyway.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
They vote for members of the Parliament in London
Except for the members of the House of Lords, which nobody votes for. If I had a Parliament like that and got to vote against it, I would.
and have their own Scottish Assembly
Which doesn't have all the powers that many people want it to have...
The whole theory behind it being 'rigged' was some numpty seeing a pile of ballot papers on a table marked 'No' on Sky News when you could see they said 'Yes' and jumping to conclusions. The yes campaign in Dundee (where the video was taken) even went on twitter to clear it up, but the tin foil hat brigade are having none of it: https://twitter.com/YesDundee/...
In other news, one full quarter of Americans are blithering idiots.
More telling was reading TFA and seeing that it's more predominant in the lower quintile of wage earners. Also tended to be in states where should they secede they would lose all their water contract rights with other states. Anybody who wants secession is just bad at economics.
Hire me...
FFFRRRRREEEEEDDDDDOOOOMMMM!
As a Scot living through the referendum, it has been a sea of optimism and YES flags and events. Many people, including myself woke up this morning very disappointed but also wondering how did this happen:
One of the biggest revelations was that The over-65's swung it for No whilst all age groups from 16 to 55 voted for independence. one of the key elements of the YES campaign is that none of the media TV channels or daily newspapers supported independence and so Scots could only get information from the internet. Twitter, websites such as Bella Caledonia, Wings over Scotland have been on the only places to find real information that hadn't been skewed heavily in favour of the No campaign.
The over-65's are the least internet connected and the most trustworthy of the BBC, even though the BBC has been accused of bias in an academic study from a survey of their entire news output over a 6 month period.
Also, the over-65's have the shortest time stake in this. plus have had the trappings of gold plated pensions that the generation behind them cannot look forward to. It's a disgusting state of affairs and as a Scot I am embarrassed for my country.
45% x 85%(the turnout) x 95% (voter registration) = 36% - that's only just over 1/3rd of the population voted for independance. Lrn 2 Math.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
A heart, he no doubt had stolen from a Welsh, Irish, or Scottish street urchin.
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with you is obviously an idiot. Maybe they just feel that whatever problems are affecting them in their state outway any benefits they get from being in the Union. It good to see that critical thinkers like you are around to help us all relieve ourselves of our idiocy. Thank you for your inspiring words that tell us money is more important than happiness and safety.
Clever of them to rig all the opinion polls too.
But there is going to be increasing very small set of powers that could be given the the Scottish Assembly as all the remaining powers will be in the EU Scotland still wants to be a member of.
They could have told the EU to get out. After seeing what lack of control of your own currency did to Greece, Italy, and Spain I've come to the conclusion the tight economic binding which is the EU is a bad idea. There are also no firewalls. It creates a situation where a country as small as Greece, Italy, or Spain can threaten to take down the entire global economy.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Many, but not enough. That's how a democracy works.
You know that jus primae noctis has been abolished, right?
It actually hasn't been abolished because, you know, it's kind of hard to abolish something which most likely didn't actually exist.
It is not just that "jus primae noctis" (otherwise known as "Droit du seigneur") was abolished
it in fact never existed in the first place!
Taken from wikipidia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
from the section -- Literary and other references
Braveheart (1995); ius primae noctis is invoked by Edward Longshanks in an attempt to breed the Scots out. This was one of the many inaccuracies cited by critics of the film.
Oh, it's binding alright. Westminster ceded the necessary legal powers regarding the nature of the union through the Edinburgh Agreement.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The UK is a very fascist country, not free at all. It is ruled by evil Lords and a corrupt politican caste and voters have a choice between evil and evil.
FTFY:
The USA is a very fascist country, not free at all. It is ruled by wealthy business and a corrupt politican caste and voters have a choice between evil and evil.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The Rock is the definitive answer.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The US has plenty of attorneys with experience representing plaintiffs in contested national elections, going back at least to 2000.
To those of you in Scotland, feel free to take as many as you want. Return is not necessary. Special volume discounts available.
Although it should be pointed out that hereditary peerage is no longer applicable to the House of Lords. If anything, the composition and the way that members are even selected has been changing more rapidly in the past decade than at almost any other time in British history. It still is an appointed body though, largely made up of what the prior Prime Minister wanted to see put into that body.
There has never been a referendum on independence in Scotland before. There were two referendums on devolution: the one in 1979 was narrowly in favour but failed because it did not reach the required 40% of the electorate, and the one in 1997 succeeded, establishing the Scottish Parliament.
The referendum was a binding vote because it was approved by the Queen and Parliament in the confusingly titled "The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013"
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This is all so much saber rattling. Neither should, nor would separate. It is a political ploy fed to citizens in order to negotiate a better deal within respective unions or confederacy. In both cases, should the actual event ever happen they would be screwed in so many ways. Quebec gets preferential treatment to appease them. Every now and then they will threaten, but in the hopes of getting even more preferential treatment.
The last referendum Quebec had, we ran a pool on what the vote would be. That is about how worried the rest of the world is about Quebec actually leaving Canada. Eventually people will get sick of it and call their bluff and say, go ahead then, separate already. It's like the child threatening to call child services on their parents, and the eventual response being, here is the phone, would you like me to dial the number for you?
The house of lords arguably has a stabilising influence though. The MPs in the commons have to get voted in. That tends to mean they promise the world, and then find they can't live up to their promises. It also means they follow the most popular policies with short-term views. The lords have secure seats, so they get to focus more on the long-term impacts. It's not ideal, but it's not a terrible system.
In addition the house of commons creates the laws, then have to get it past the house of lords. So it doesn't mean any laws fail to get drafted. The lords are then under scrutiny to see what they reject and why. That pressure means they'll only do so if there are good reasons. As a result laws go back and forth a few times with adjustments until you get something that's actually workable rather than a kneejerk response.
People want to live in a country without paying for its upkeep. What's next, city-states?
What's your point? That Scotland won't be "contributing" when it remains a part of the United Kingdom, somehow?
Your comment on "city states" sounds far more reminiscent of the direction in which London is heading. It's already approaching an entity in its own right within England, increasingly unbalancing the United Kingdom and heavily influenced by tax-dodging multinational companies.
The "City of London" (a historic title which refers only to the financial "square mile" rather than the other several hundred square miles of London itself) is notoriously undemocratic, prominent way, *way* beyond its nominal area, and interferes on behalf of its corporate paymasters in the working of the UK in general:-
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
OK, so they can vote for which British lord rules over them? Woopty f***en do . Since they are not ruled by a Scottish government they are still enslaved by a foreign power.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Special treatment. I know it's a cliché but that was really quite Orwellian.
The reason the EU would be reluctant to accept Scotland - at least in the short term - is it would encourage a whole load of other separatist movements across Europe and would further fragment an already highly fragmented demos.
The Lords is just a revising chamber. The Commons has primacy and even if the Lords reject a bill the Commons can invoke the "guillotine" to pass it anyway. There are advantages and disadvantages of course. The main advantage is that the Lords cannot challenge the commons as they have no democratic legitimacy. All they can do is discuss and argue over the various provisions and amendments to the legislation that comes their way.
No clue what you're talking about.
The House of Lords is there as a check though - it would be completely broken if they were elected.
Why? If parliament puts through a stupid, self-destructive act because they feel they're being forced by the media, the Lords have the ability to step in and say 'Hey, this makes good headlines but it's going hurt everyone else, take it back to the drawing board'. They can do that precisely because they're *not* elected - which means that the media have nothing they can threaten them with.
It's also a good check against a 'Tyranny of the Majority' type act.
Hence the doesn't...
Technically speaking, it is impossible for a Lord to sit in the House of Commons of even vote.
While the prime minister does not have to be a member of the House of Commons, or be a commonor at all, he is chosen by them and they are unlikely to choose anyone but one of their own, meaning no lord has been Prime Minister for well over a century. Walpole who founded the post three centuries ago was a commoner and most of his successors have been too.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"This was one of the many inaccuracies cited by critics of the film." - i would add historians the "pointing out inaccuracies"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Didn't the Irish have a lot of financial issues themselves?
it is much more productive and beneficial for their sanity if they direct their political woahs at Westminster
What are "political woahs"? It sounds like something out of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in Scotland". ;-P
And as if the English are any better; go out in any crap nowhere provincial town there late on Saturday night and I'm sure you'll see as much drink-fuelled disorder as anywhere in Scotland.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Oh.
Wait.
Too soon?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This is also a good argument that applies to the United States, too. It explains why the 17th Amendmennt was a mistake.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The referendum was a binding vote because it was approved by the Queen and Parliament in the confusingly titled "The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013"
For centuries, Canada was just something approved in "The British North American Act".
Not that confusing.
Canada was created in 1867, only was not considered Britain in 1947, gained independence in 1982 (yes, I know you don't know this, you're American, you probably think Canada is a state).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most of the rabidly religious from Scotland ended up in the bible belt of the USA and ruined that part of the country
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Most importantly the Parliament Act allows the Commons to force a bill through Lords if it's been sent back twice already, regardless of what the Lords want. Therefore the most the HoL can do is slow things down.
Given this fact it's probably not surprising that nobody cares much about reforming it. It's another check/balance and all it can ultimately do is throw sand in the wheels, it has no real power.
P.J. O' Rourke calls himself an Irish man? Pah! Bullshit. He is American and not qualified to speak as a 'prejudiced Irishman'.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
An independent Scotland would already be in the EU, the message from Brussels was yes, they can, and the Euro or the Pound would work fine. The London-centric media is intensely unionist and propagated blatantly untrue FUD, backed by Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Microsoft, Accenture, IBM, Bayer, Daimler, EON Energy, Thyssen, XL Group, Alliance Trust, Bilfinger, and BMW, to scare Scottish voters into voting no. I'm English and have no particular affiliation to Scotland but it was shamefull how the English media, corporations, and Westminster politicians behaved during the referendum. Because of the hysteria, exaggerations, and lies implying increased crime and disorder as a consequence of the Independence Referendum, at one point Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation felt that they had to make the following public announcement:
“The Police Service of Scotland and the men and women who work in it should not be used as a political football at any time and especially so in these last few hours of the referendum campaign.
As I have previously stated the referendum debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured.
It was inevitable that the closer we came to the 18th of September passions would increase but that does not justify the exaggerated rhetoric that is being deployed with increased frequency. Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Scotland’s citizens are overwhelmingly law abiding and tolerant and it is preposterous to imply that by placing a cross in a box, our citizens will suddenly abandon the personal virtues and values held dear to them all.
At this time it is more important than ever that individuals be they politicians, journalists or whoever should carefully consider their words, maintain level heads and act with respect. Respect is not demonstrated by suggesting a minority of mindless idiots are representative of anything. One of the many joys of this campaign has been how it has awakened political awareness across almost every single section of society. The success enjoyed by the many should not be sullied by the actions of the few.
Police officers must be kept free from the distractions of rhetoric better suited to the playground that the political stump. If crime has been committed it will be investigated and dealt with appropriately but quite simply police officers have better things to do than officiate in spats on social media and respond to baseless speculation of the potential for disorder on and following polling day”
Feckin' jobbies!
That is assuming that everybody who would support seceding voted. However, it appears that the demographics that supported seceding (younger people) were ones that have lower voter turnout and are less likely or able to vote.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Aye, and when they do bump something back a couple of times, people tend to pay attention. There's little that gets jammed through without people noticing.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
As an Englishman observing this from outside Scotland (but from within the UK), I find the geographical breakdown interesting. The overall result was 55.30% No and 44.70 % Yes, but looking at the results from the 32 councils only four had majorities for the Yes vote. 28 had a majority for No (albeit very slim in one instance).
The councils where the Yes vote was in the majority were all urban. In all the rural (and some urban) councils the No vote had the majority. OK, some of these are a lot smaller (in population) than the councils where the Yes vote had the majority, but they were a lot larger geographically.
What was very interesting was that some areas which voted No are SNP strongholds, including Alex Salmon's own constituency.
I think there is enough here to keep the pundits going for months!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
The closest analog to that would be the SCOTUS here across the pond. The problem comes in when they are appointed because they have the extreme view of whomever is appointing. That is why most decisions made by the Supremes are almost always split 5-4.
If the US Senate was styled that way where the Senate positions were appointed (perhaps by the state governor), it might help with mitigating radical parties that get into power, but on the other hand, it might only result in extremists having that chunk of the governing machine to themselves.
It's definitely not a monarchy, the head of government is an elected Prime Minister, the Queen's role is almost purely ceremonial.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And even fewer of the super-powers people want to have.
The underlying problem is that devolution in the United Kingdom was asymmetric. England does not have an assembly. Actually this means that the English as second-class citizens in the UK, but irrational resentments can be built out of any inequality, even one in your favour.
All they would have to do is decide to make every English MP a member of a "Convention of England" or some such, and give them £1 a year to underline that it's a separate job.
Anything done to make Scotland more unequal - in either direction - will only make things worse.
That is actually the way it originally worked. It was changed by the 17th amendment. Senators were selected by whatever means each state wanted to use. Typically, they were appointed. There are a number of people who think the change has had a negative effect in that the Senate no longer functions as an effective moderating influence.
Theocracy is the most offensive aspect, in my opinion, but monarchy is almost as offensive. Well, gosh maybe monarchy is more offensive. It's hard to decide.
While I agree with you completely as a matter of principle, in practice the powers of the Monarch and Church in England are so tightly constrained by constitution and tradition that they are insignificant against other sources of oligarchy or theocracy. In theory, I'd like to see the Monarch abolished and the Church disestablished, but I'd want to be thoroughly convinced that any alternative wouldn't have unintended consequences.
The first thing that happens when the Queen opens each new session of parliament is that her representative, Black Rod, has the door of the parliament chamber ceremonially slammed in his face. The Queen then reads a speech written by the elected government. She is then obliged to rubber stamp whatever laws the elected government passes. Should she refuse, there would be a huge constitutional crisis that would probably end in the abolition of the monarchy unless her action had such massive public support that the government was embarrassed into backing off (in which case, what's not to like?) If any member of the Royal family makes any comment that could be construed as "political" there is a massive political and media row.
As for "theocracy" someone has already posted that the House of Lords (which is where the Bishops sit) only review and amend legislation, and any amendments be overruled by the elected government (at the cost of a certain amount of publicity). The Church of England (certainly the English branch) is about the most liberal non-fundamentailst bunch of god botherers you can find. There's some questionable, like the requirement for schools to have a "broadly Christian" assembly every week, but thats more honoured in the breach than the observance. Its not the UK that agonizes over teaching of evolution...
Of course, I know that the USA with its democracy and strict separation of church and state has no problems with wealthy, unelected individuals having undue influence, or with local government trying to (say) block the teaching of evolution in school...
I certainly know in which countries I'd be most reluctant to publicly declare myself an atheist or burn a flag (should I feel the urge)...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Not just conspiracy theorists, the police are investigating a number of cases. It's unlikely to be widespread enough to affect the result.
Whimpered the gutless Scotsman.
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
The numpty was one of the Sky reporters who claimed that the pile of unsorted ballot papers were 'No' votes.
I'm reasonably proud of my little island and a bit we refer to as the UK.
Punched above our weight for a couple of hundred years, and made out mark on the planet. Generally I think we've done more good than harm - but definitely not perfect and plenty of room for improvement.
Personally glad that Scotland didn't leave us - but would have happily accepted any decision they made.
Hopefully this is just tacit acceptance it's a bit shit for all of us at the moment, and we all need to ride this out together. It'll get better, it'll get worse again, we'll bitch and we'll whine about the unfairness of it all - but at least we're not France.
even if the populous voted
The populous what?
Ezekiel 23:20
The UK is a very fascist country, not free at all. It is ruled by evil Lords and a corrupt politican caste and voters have a choice between evil and evil.
in a sense almost any country in the world is. 20th century fascisms as such are passé (reviving, though), but the same elites that fostered those control and practically own today's democracies. through the media (just substitute the blunt and lurid state propaganda with overwhelming disinformation by private media owned by those same elites), through coercion of representatives and financial control of states. besides ideology, in the end fascism was all about the big money and today it's no different, it's just a more stable and efficient system. it's also more tolerable for the populace, and people do have more or less free speech, but speech doesn't matter that much and they rarely get to decide on really relevant issues, if at all. so yes, the same sort of people that ruled fascist regimes rules more or less today's democracies, unilaterally making decisions that affect millions.
Countries that have Queens are monarchies. I don't think we really need to debate this.
If she is purely ceremonial then that makes it worse, not better.
I'm just saying, that's a lot of words defending a system of theocratic monarchy over a system of secular democracy. Maybe I'm biased but I'm for secular democracy.
Learn why it is that way and how it mostly works.
A good idea? well probably not. It is not idealistic but also has stood the test of time (more or less)
I'm just saying, that's a lot of words defending a system of theocratic monarchy over a system of secular democracy.
TLDNR: A Constitutional monarchy is a democracy, and the elected government and major political parties are effectively secular (OK, there's N. Ireland, but the sectarian nature of politics there reflects community divisions going back for centuries).
Maybe I'm biased but I'm for secular democracy.
So am I - but the UK comes closer in practice than many true "secular democracies" and our state religion verges on institutional agnosticism.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I may not agree with you but this person has set it up to hunt you down. Oh well that is slashdot.
I am tired of the pointless posts.
our state religion verges on institutional agnosticism.
Indeed. The Archbishop of Canterbury has only recently admitted to doubts about god. Can you imagine that from any other major religious leader?
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
Voters may be suffering from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
They vote for members of the Parliament in London
Except for the members of the House of Lords, which nobody votes for. If I had a Parliament like that and got to vote against it, I would.
The House of Lords is selected on merit by elected politicians, which is completely different from the US where key governement roles are selected on merit by an elected politician.
You are argue whether the selection is actually on merit rather than political considerations, but the situation is the same both sides of the atlantic.
Holy shit, you're right 8-(
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
An independent Scotland would already be in the EU
Not really. The SNP White Paper was clear that this was a matter for negotiation:
"Following a vote for independence, the Scottish Government will immediately seek discussions with the Westminster Government and with the member states and institutions of the EU to agree the process whereby a smooth transition to full EU membership can take place on the day Scotland becomes an independent country."
The President of the European Commission said "A new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory" and when interviewed said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to secure membership.
These are excuses:
"Oh, well we have a Queen, and we're legally second- or third-class citizens, and we have an official state religion with special legal rights, and leaders of that church sit in reserved seats on one of our our official legislative bodies, and our head of state is born into that position -- but oh we're totally a secular democracy. Pfft, we're even way more secular democracy than America."
America is a super religious country, yeah, and it's still not a theocracy. Sure it's totally weird that the UK is less religious but nevertheless they are still a theocracy. Its political process is mostly run by an elected body, uh huh, but it is still a monarchy. The UK doesn't get to hand-wave and talk about itself as a secular democracy when it is the opposite of secular and the opposite of a democracy. And don't even talk about an "unwritten" Constitution. That is preposterous. Do Brits really have to be told that imaginary Constitutions don't count?
If Brits want secularism, democracy, and a constitution -- well then why don't they get those things? All of those things are easily in reach.
Braveheart (1995); ius primae noctis is invoked by Edward Longshanks in an attempt to breed the Scots out. This was one of the many inaccuracies cited by critics of the film.
So because Braveheart was historically inaccurate, primae noctis never existed and never was used. It was just a pipe dream that seemed to hover around our collective imaginations for hundreds and hundreds of years. Weird how a thing like that works.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Ha! Any reason to hate, amirite? Your logic is weak and paranoid.
You seem to be confused. It's not a theocracy. In a theocracy, priests rule in the name of a god or gods. The queen is entirely ceremonial. You seem to be confusing history and the present, something that someone from such a young country can be easily excused. The constitution does exist - it's just not written down in a single document.
Its political process is mostly run by an elected body, uh huh
No, its not "mostly" run by the elected body, the elected body has the ultimate power to pass laws. The monarch has no legislative power, she is bound by the constitution (which is not imaginary) to read out a speech written by the elected government once a year and otherwise keep the fuck out of politics or else. The House of Lords - which includes representatives of the church - can review and amend laws, but the elected house is at liberty to reject any such amendments and pass the law anyway. In practice, the amendments are usually worthwhile technical improvements.
That is not the way a "theocratic monarchy" works....
The problems with the UK system are the same as any other democracy: party-political dogma and all those super-rich plutocrats and multinational companies who aren't constitutionally barred from meddling in politics.
As I've already said several times, I'd personally like to see the state church and the monarchy go as a matter of principle, but not as a matter of principle, and not at the cost of
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
As I've already said several times, I'd personally like to see the state church and the monarchy go as a matter of principle, but not as a matter of principle, and not at the cost of
...an elected, party political "head of state" and the economy nearly running off a fiscal cliff because the two elected houses full of party animals were having a cockfight.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"No, its not "mostly" run by the elected body, the elected body has the ultimate power to pass laws."
Thank you for correcting me (rolling eyes) now go correct Wikipedia:
"Bills can be introduced into the House of Lords .... Most new members of the House of Lords are appointed... Membership of the House of Lords is made up of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal... [There are 92 unelected hereditary peers in that body.] It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons."
More: "The monarch undertakes various official representational duties... The Royal Prerogative is extensive and parliamentary approval is not formally required for its exercise... The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. "
Golly you have a lot to go correct on Wikipedia.
You go on to say "the Queen must otherwise keep the fuck out of politics or else."
Right: "or else". She has real powers which, if she exercised them, might lead her to lose those powers. That means she has those powers. There's no "or else" in a situation where a person can't take action. But frankly that isn't important because it is more stupid not less stupid to have a powerless monarch. What do you keep her around for, just to remind people that they are subjects instead of citizens? Just to officially maintain a tiered system of legal rights? That's a terrible reason.
Look, I get it, you have the House of Commons, which is a democratic body. You went through a whole sort-of revolution where that body asserted itself as politically supreme and proved it in battles. That is nice, and it's truly a mishmash system they have, but I can't say this more clearly: if you have a monarch, you aren't a democracy; if you have an official state church, you aren't secular.
And moreover my particular point is that it is embarrassing, in 2014, for Western Civilization's second-most-important country to be a theocratic monarchy.
A monarchy is a political system with a monarch. UK has a monarch. Therefore UK is a monarchy.
A theocracy is a political system with an official state church, where the head of the government is the head of the church. The UK is such a system. Therefore the UK is a theocracy. The Queen does serve in the name of God doesn't she? "God save the Queen" and all that? And isn't she the leader of the Anglican Church? Yeah, that's theocracy.
It is true that I enjoy baiting the UK but it's easy to do because I'm right. The UK is a theocratic monarchy. That's just a fact but my actual point is that that is stupid. It should stop being a theocratic monarchy. Every day they delay increases the embarrassment. I think the world would be better if the UK became a secular democracy (and thereupon renamed itself to something without "kingdom" in it).
An unwritten constitution is the same as an imaginary constitution which is the same as no constitution at all. A constitution which is really a bunch of laws is... a bunch of laws, not a constitution. A constitution can be read. If you can't read it then it isn't a constitution.
How would you feel if you got arrested and the officer told you that you were inviolation of an "unwritten law". Oh, it's a real law, it's just that you can't read it because it's unwritten. Nobody would take that idea seriously because it isn't a serious idea.
Disband the monarchy. Send home the Lords. Do away with peerage. Ditch the state church. Write down your constitution. Do all that and apparently nothing in the UK will change, because you and other people claim that none of those things matter at all.
Thank you for correcting me (rolling eyes) now go correct Wikipedia:
Now go read the bit of Wikipedia about the Parliament Acts which allow the Commons to pass legislation without the approval of the House of Lords (...you might also want to ask yourself how the heck and act like that ever got passed in a "theocratic monarchy").
You go on to say "the Queen must otherwise keep the fuck out of politics or else."
Right: "or else". She has real powers which, if she exercised them, might lead her to lose those powers.
No, she has theoretical powers that if she even tried to exercise would trigger the "or else". Even making an allegedly political comment causes a shitstorm.
if you have a monarch, you aren't a democracy;
Since you seem to regard Wikipedia as the fount of all knowledge: Constitutional monarchy is a form of democratic government in which a monarch acts as a non-party political head of state within the boundaries of a constitution, whether written or unwritten. (The article goes on to describe the UK as a Constitutional Monarchy).
if you have an official state church, you aren't secular.
...true, but if the state church is subordinate to an elected parliament, you don't have a theocracy, either. Your favourite source, again: Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". In the most common usage of the term, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as patron and defender of the official Church); the government proclaims it rules on behalf of God* or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws.
* ...you know, like "one nation under God"... :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
You used a lot of words to pretend that the UK isn't a kingdom and doesn't have a monarchy and doesn't have a state church. I applaud that the UK is so progressive and generally free while maintaining such absurd anachronisms, but maintain them it does. They'll be a theocratic monarchy until they sever ties with the church and sever ties with the monarch. You can wave your hands around all you want, you can't make a country with a queen into a democracy.