Is there really such a thing as the UK?

Musiclover89 · Post by **Musiclover89** » Sun May 04, 2008 1:46 pm

Recently i've been thinknig about the UK and its current situation we've ment to be one nation yet we don't act like it the majority of the time its always been that way Scotland, England, Wales and Northen Ireland i really don't think this country is United in the slightest its sad really cause i quite enjoy visiting other parts of the country

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Sun May 04, 2008 2:39 pm

The UK has never been "one country". It is and always was a multinational economic union (with the exception of Wales which was conquered by Longshanks in the late 13th century). There were,. from an English perspective serious advantages to a Union between Scotland and England, but those advantages applied only to England.

Those advantages included not having a militarily strong, possibly hostile neighbouring nation. This was dealt with by the government in London refusing to allow assistance - a ship from the colony that called at the Jamaican city of Port Royal was refused assistance on the orders of the English government.

The fact that the Darien Scheme effectively bankrupted Scotland was one of the primary factors in the 1707 Act of Union.

The UK was an economic union which is far past it's sell-by date, is totally obsolete in the context of the European Union, and was intended to benefit only the establishment.

So Darren, the UK is not a country. Most people in the world equate the UK (or Britain) with England - for which I thank them.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sun May 04, 2008 3:04 pm

In fact most of my friends over here think the UK is just London :wah::wah:

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 04, 2008 4:07 pm

The UK has given us three hundred years of stability. Whether the EU can do the same sort of job is an interesting question. Hopefully we are mature enough societies not to go to war against eachother now. If the Scots want to leave - let them.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sun May 04, 2008 5:05 pm

I think the UK union is great. I like being united with all the countries.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun May 04, 2008 5:18 pm

We tried to show you how.:-3

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:15 am

hoppy;856587 wrote: We tried to show you how.:-3

Showed us how to do what?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:39 am

Is there really such a thing as the UK?

EXACTLY !

And if the UK is not real then the people in it are just figments of imagination.

1 down.

193 to go.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:46 am

Nomad;856705 wrote: Is there really such a thing as the UK?

EXACTLY !

And if the UK is not real then the people in it are just figments of imagination.

1 down.

193 to go.

And the imagination is a powerful tool ..... be afraid .... bhahahahaha ..... be very afraid

Just remember this bit of imagination has 'crossed the pond' and is forming its army as we speak.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:55 am

Pheasy;856706 wrote: And the imagination is a powerful tool ..... be afraid .... bhahahahaha ..... be very afraid

Just remember this bit of imagination has 'crossed the pond' and is forming its army as we speak.

You have an imaginary army ?

I have imaginary people in my head too.

Theyre weapon of choice is tangerines and when they lob the juicy little orbs at the enemy the nursery rhyme itsy bitsy spider is always playing in the background.

Its a very powerful and threatening thing to witness.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:10 am

Nomad;856711 wrote: You have an imaginary army ?

I have imaginary people in my head too.

Theyre weapon of choice is tangerines and when they lob the juicy little orbs at the enemy the nursery rhyme itsy bitsy spider is always playing in the background.

Its a very powerful and threatening thing to witness.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:12 am

Course their is.......I think we have quite good bonds on the whole with each other too. Let it never change I say..

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:20 am

Chezzie;856724 wrote: Course their is.......I think we have quite good bonds on the whole with each other too. Let it never change I say..

Well said Chezzers :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:27 am

Clodhopper;856559 wrote: The UK has given us three hundred years of stability. Whether the EU can do the same sort of job is an interesting question. Hopefully we are mature enough societies not to go to war against eachother now. If the Scots want to leave - let them.

But you won't let us because you want the oil.:sneaky: and before very long we'll probably have pipelines running from scotland to the south east carrying water as well. cos you keep having droughts. It's bad enough they want to cover the hills with giant windmills to supply you with electricity. Build them in yorkshire I say-or the lake district. The tories are terrified of what will happen when we stop subsidising the UK treasury and labour are terrified that they never get to form another government. You guys should be really annoyed about scots MP's voting on legislation that has no force in scotland but wouldn't get through in england without their votes. Shouldn't be allowed.

If you ask nicely you can keep Gordon Brown-he's probably going to need a new seat after the next election anyway.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:36 am

In answer to the question in the thread's title, the relevant legislation might beIn every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This Act may be cited as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927. which really ought to be taken as a "yes", I think. It was, after all, an expression of Members of Parliament representing England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 06, 2008 2:06 am

spot;856736 wrote: In answer to the question in the thread's title, the relevant legislation might beIn every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This Act may be cited as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927. which really ought to be taken as a "yes", I think. It was, after all, an expression of Members of Parliament representing England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

You pedant. I thought he meant in the spiritual sense

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... endum.html

Alexander didn't tell Brown of Scots vote plan

You have to laugh. There's no real choice in the matter. If labour decide to vote against a referendum entirely in the scottish parliament then the next election would see a massive swing to the SNP if only to teach labour not to be such patronising bastards.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:23 am

gmc;856731 wrote: But you won't let us because you want the oil.:sneaky: and before very long we'll probably have pipelines running from scotland to the south east carrying water as well. cos you keep having droughts. It's bad enough they want to cover the hills with giant windmills to supply you with electricity. Build them in yorkshire I say-or the lake district. The tories are terrified of what will happen when we stop subsidising the UK treasury and labour are terrified that they never get to form another government. You guys should be really annoyed about scots MP's voting on legislation that has no force in scotland but wouldn't get through in england without their votes. Shouldn't be allowed.

If you ask nicely you can keep Gordon Brown-he's probably going to need a new seat after the next election anyway.

And here we see the real reason the Scots need the English - to complain about. Scottish history is mostly one long litany of complaint about how if it weren't for the English the Scots by now would have made a lot more money.

Chuckle. It won't stop if they get independence, either, it'll just be called "foreign policy".

Vinny_Mac · Post by **Vinny_Mac** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:32 am

Historically there wasn't any sense of british identity until the mid-18th century, when the threat from France resulted in a sudden outpouring of pro-British, anti-French propaganda. This was followed by the uniting influence of the British Empire, which basically meant that you could lord it over some natives and make a ton of cash no matter what part of these fair isles you were from. Unfortunately we've lost the empire and the EU has blunted our jingoism, as the threat to our sovreignty is now rather less direct. So perhaps it is time to let the Union split assunder, given that national identity is apparently so weak it only holds together when there are some johnny foreigners we can all rail against. Unless the Muslim extremists are capable of creating a climate of fear and hatred, then the Union might survive!

So roll on extremism, and the perpetuation of the shining light of great british identity :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 07, 2008 1:22 am

Clodhopper;858007 wrote: And here we see the real reason the Scots need the English - to complain about. Scottish history is mostly one long litany of complaint about how if it weren't for the English the Scots by now would have made a lot more money.

Chuckle. It won't stop if they get independence, either, it'll just be called "foreign policy".

The thing is we know it's really our politicians who are really to blame. We try and keep quiet about gordon brown and tony blair being scots and hope you'll forget because it's really embarrassing.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 4:01 am

For me, one of the advantages of the Union is that it gives us a wider pool from which to choose our leaders. Many of the best have not been English.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Wed May 07, 2008 4:55 am

We're still united in many things surely? Same currency (with regional variations I know) same language, same BBC, same hatred of the French!!!

(:sneaky: bad Immy being racist or is it zenophobic?)

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 5:26 am

Immy: Xenophobic.

Agree that we have much in common. Personally I feel the breakdown of the Union would be a very bad thing for all concerned. But if the others don't want to be in it, I don't want them in it. I don't have a problem with Welsh or Scottish MPs voting on English issues as long as they have the interests of all the peoples of this state at heart

I wonder if the National Assemblies have changed attitudes, and if so in what ways?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 07, 2008 5:51 am

Clodhopper;858814 wrote: Immy: Xenophobic.

Agree that we have much in common. Personally I feel the breakdown of the Union would be a very bad thing for all concerned. But if the others don't want to be in it, I don't want them in it. I don't have a problem with Welsh or Scottish MPs voting on English issues as long as they have the interests of all the peoples of this state at heart

I wonder if the National Assemblies have changed attitudes, and if so in what ways?

You should have a problem. They tend to vote for the party interests rather than in the interests of the community. You now have foundation hospitals because of scots MP's supporting something they wouldn't support in scotland. We have a different education system so why are scots voting on legislation that doesn't affect scotland. We've complained for years about policies being foisted on us we didn't want and so should you. The last straw was the poll tax which we got first because there were not enough tory voters to worry about upsetting -that effectively killed off the conservative and unionist party in scotland.

In scotland the scottish parliament has changed attitudes. The MSP's are elected by proportional representation. For the first time the way people actually vote is reflected in the make up of the MP's. More people now vote and political debbate has livened up because there is now some point to it. Labour are terrified of the voters and what they might do next which is the way it should be. One of the reasons Westminster labour MP's they are starting to be more rebellious is they realise their seat is on the line in a way it wasn't before. Both the welsh and the scots have an alternative political party to frighten them with.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:19 am

Clodhopper;858814 wrote: Immy: Xenophobic.

Agree that we have much in common. Personally I feel the breakdown of the Union would be a very bad thing for all concerned. But if the others don't want to be in it, I don't want them in it. I don't have a problem with Welsh or Scottish MPs voting on English issues as long as they have the interests of all the peoples of this state at heart

I wonder if the National Assemblies have changed attitudes, and if so in what ways?

Shame I can't spell :rolleyes:

I think it would be a shame to lose the UK entirely, I may be English by birth but I consider myself part of the whole.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:36 am

gmc: Perhaps I should be more upset about it, but I find it hard to get worked up about. Is it much more ridiculous than a rural Northumbrian MP voting on financial legislation that really just affects the City? Or someone with a city centre constituency voting on farming issues?

You've got the SNP, we've got the Tories...seems to me the current backbench unrest is mostly to do with being the fag end of a government on its way out. Labour has a considerable fear of the electorate at the moment, and with good reason.

Virtually alone in this country, I rather liked Blair, but I've been surprised at how useless Brown is. What comes of putting a bean-counter in charge, I suppose.

Do you think Scotland will go for independence? Must admit I'm at least half expecting it. I have to admit to some concern about the "No friends south of the Border" crowd, especially since I've been in Scottish pubs when England are playing (not against Scotland, I might add), and watched the clientele having a frenzied hate session. Can't say it inspires confidence.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 9:02 am

I think it would be a shame to lose the UK entirely, I may be English by birth but I consider myself part of the whole.

Quite a few English people feel that way, but if the Scots and Welsh do they keep it a well guarded secret. I suspect that the only reason the Welsh aren't more anti-Union is that the North and South Welsh dislike eachother at least as much as the English!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:44 am

Clodhopper;859114 wrote: gmc: Perhaps I should be more upset about it, but I find it hard to get worked up about. Is it much more ridiculous than a rural Northumbrian MP voting on financial legislation that really just affects the City? Or someone with a city centre constituency voting on farming issues?

You've got the SNP, we've got the Tories...seems to me the current backbench unrest is mostly to do with being the fag end of a government on its way out. Labour has a considerable fear of the electorate at the moment, and with good reason.

Virtually alone in this country, I rather liked Blair, but I've been surprised at how useless Brown is. What comes of putting a bean-counter in charge, I suppose.

Do you think Scotland will go for independence? Must admit I'm at least half expecting it. I have to admit to some concern about the "No friends south of the Border" crowd, especially since I've been in Scottish pubs when England are playing (not against Scotland, I might add), and watched the clientele having a frenzied hate session. Can't say it inspires confidence.

I honestly don't know. Most don't want independence per se but do want more say in how things are done. Generally scots tend to be more left wing in their politics than down south which is why the tories don't get very far. The only reason they have any seats at all is due to PR so now scots tories are all for it.

On the other hand you perhaps seen the current stooshie between scottish labour and Westminster labour over whether they should support a referendum on independence. While most scots don't particularly support total independence if they are told they can't have a referendum you can almost guarantee wholesale support for the SNP as a consequence. We're not stupid so patronising us is a big mistake.

I have to admit to some concern about the "No friends south of the Border" crowd, especially since I've been in Scottish pubs when England are playing (not against Scotland, I might add), and watched the clientele having a frenzied hate session. Can't say it inspires confidence.

You're not the only one that has a problem most of that is simple prejudice and usually from people who don't actually know their own history well enough. It does go beyond friendly rivalry sometimes much to our shame. My wife is english and I have two brothers that on occasion are fairly vocal-especially at new year. On one occasion she lost her temper and shut both of them up by pointing out it was racist, pig ignorant and deeply offensive-much to the delight of their wives and children and their embarrassment. I have nephews and nieces that come out with that kind of crap they hear at school The fact they are half english gets them thinking about it. teenager tend to repeat what they hear without actually thinking about it. It's the same sectarianism-it needs to be challenged.

It works both ways. I've worked in england and had the "I hate the scots conversational gambit" as well Since london accents and southern english accents like in essex sound effeminate to the scots ear it was actually a bit hard to feel intimidated.

It's not so much driven by nationalism as by real political grievances. What really set it of was the poll tax being imposed by a government thoroughly detested by most of scotland.

There is real north/south divide with decisions made by a london establishment that thinks anything north of watford doesn't matter. Remember we had a chairman of the bank of england that said job losses in the north were a price worth paying if it curbed inflation in the south.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the ... 197995.stm

Virtually alone in this country, I rather liked Blair, but I've been surprised at how useless Brown is. What comes of putting a bean-counter in charge, I suppose.

We really need electoral reform. Effectively two thirds of the voters are disenfranchised. You like Tony Blair? I thought |Maggie thatcher woulfd go down as one of the most destructive prime ministers in the twentieth century now I reckon Tony has beaten her. Gordon Brown was there all the time. He can hardly claim it wasnae him

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 2:37 am

gmc: Phew! Was worried you might take offence - sometimes when you come back to a post you realise it came out sounding rather more ferocious than you had intended...

When I lived in Scotland 25 years ago the hostility I occasionally encountered was a shock because at that time the bulk of the English had no idea how the Scots felt about a wide range of issues. The net effect was that it took me nearly twenty years to be able to support Scotland at anything, until an article by James Beattie (I think it was) on his BBC Rugby Blog pointed out how silly the whole thing was. Nowadays with the internet we have much more opportunity to communicate, and hopefully this sort of thing will gradually die out.

LOL I have a Scottish friend presently recovering from a coma after headbutting a train (well, he is Scottish. I'm sure it seemed a good idea at the time). When I visited him after the Murrayfield game this year he was still not sure who he was, where he was or why, but when I described how the English pack fell apart and the golden boot of Patterson hammered the nails into the coffin of English rugby he was grinning all over his evil little face. So the rivalry definitely has a good side.

Say "referendum" and this government panics. Don't really know why though I'm guessing it has something to do with Europe. I'd be in favour of a referendum simply because it settles the issue one way or another.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 08, 2008 4:56 am

Clodhopper;859752 wrote: gmc: Phew! Was worried you might take offence - sometimes when you come back to a post you realise it came out sounding rather more ferocious than you had intended...

When I lived in Scotland 25 years ago the hostility I occasionally encountered was a shock because at that time the bulk of the English had no idea how the Scots felt about a wide range of issues. The net effect was that it took me nearly twenty years to be able to support Scotland at anything, until an article by James Beattie (I think it was) on his BBC Rugby Blog pointed out how silly the whole thing was. Nowadays with the internet we have much more opportunity to communicate, and hopefully this sort of thing will gradually die out.

LOL I have a Scottish friend presently recovering from a coma after headbutting a train (well, he is Scottish. I'm sure it seemed a good idea at the time). When I visited him after the Murrayfield game this year he was still not sure who he was, where he was or why, but when I described how the English pack fell apart and the golden boot of Patterson hammered the nails into the coffin of English rugby he was grinning all over his evil little face. So the rivalry definitely has a good side.

Say "referendum" and this government panics. Don't really know why though I'm guessing it has something to do with Europe. I'd be in favour of a referendum simply because it settles the issue one way or another.

Why would I take offence? One of my pet hates about this forum is the number of people that decide a comment made in discussing politics is meant personally when clearly it was a general one aimed at no one in particular. I find myself studying how I've expressed something in case it gives offence when none was intended, and turning round saying don't be so Bloody silly if someone does take offence doesn't help matters.

Frighteningly enough I can empathise with your friend headbutting a train, it shouldn't have annoyed him.

As to the referendum, there was one when we joined instigated by opponents to joining who thought the answer would be no. A fact anti Europeans like to forget about. On the other hand there was no referendum on either side of the border about the Union.

There are similarities in that scotland was suffering because of english tariffs against Scottish goods and the English navigation laws, but union would create the largest free trade area in 18th Century Europe. Much like the reasons for joining the EU. I could put a case either way as to whether it was a good or a bad thing overall probably good-certainly when you look at the number of scots innovations (imagine no choo choos, TV, telephones, fax machines, anaesthetics etc etc,)-and philosophical impact (Adam Smith et al) the industrial revolution and political landscape might have taken a different course without it-mind you we still have a better education system (IMO) than the english one. The scots literacy rate was the highest in europe for many many years.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:26 pm

There's no doubt in my mind the Scottish education system is now appreciably better than the English one since successive governments have played politics with the latter. A close friend of mine marks exam scripts and has done for at least fifteen years now. She swears she always marks to the same standard, and year on year sees her marks having more and more added to them. I feel desperately sorry for the kids - all they can do is the exam or coursework in front of them - but I reckon a straight A grade GCSE is now about the same standard as the B/C borderline used to be for O level. The shame is that the change to GCSE was a golden opportunity to improve our educational system, but we had weevils like Baker determined to advance their political career while Education Secretary, so they had to make a fuss about something and didn't really care what as long as it made headlines. So they trashed GCSE.

Have to say you Scots are remarkably uncaring about trains. My friend is slowly recovering, but the train has been rehabilitating on a small link line near Truro and refuses to enter stations. Poor thing.

Did referendums exist in 1707??? I'd be fairly sure the concept existed, but was it an actual part of the political landscape? Come to that, when was the first British referendum? Was it the European one?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:43 pm

Clodhopper;860303 wrote: Did referendums exist in 1707??? I'd be fairly sure the concept existed, but was it an actual part of the political landscape?I'm blinking and trying to comprehend the enormity of that question. Referenda were an integral part of Greek city-state democracies, they were entirely unknown in the UK between the arrival of the Roman Legions and the advent of Harold Wilson. I can't answer for what happened in the UK before the arrival of the Roman Legions because there are no records describing what happened back then.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:02 pm

Referenda in the UK? The only moder (or post-modern) examples i could find are (results included):-

1973 - Northern Ireland referendum, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (UK)

1975 - United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum on whether the UK should remain part of the European Economic Community (yes)

1979 - Scottish devolution referendum, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution) - Fixed by the Unionist parties- so no change there...

1979 - Welsh devolution referendum, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)

1997 - Scottish devolution referendum, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)

1997 - Welsh devolution referendum, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (yes)

1998 - Greater London Authority referendum, on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)

1998 -Northern Irish Belfast Agreement referendum, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)

2004 -Northern English devolution referendums*, on elected regional assemblies for North East England (no), North West England (vote postponed) and Yorkshire and the Humber (vote postponed)

* Can't these buggers speak (whatever)? the plural is referenda.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:10 pm

Clodhopper;860303 wrote: There's no doubt in my mind the Scottish education system is now appreciably better than the English one since successive governments have played politics with the latter. A close friend of mine marks exam scripts and has done for at least fifteen years now. She swears she always marks to the same standard, and year on year sees her marks having more and more added to them. I feel desperately sorry for the kids - all they can do is the exam or coursework in front of them - but I reckon a straight A grade GCSE is now about the same standard as the B/C borderline used to be for O level. The shame is that the change to GCSE was a golden opportunity to improve our educational system, but we had weevils like Baker determined to advance their political career while Education Secretary, so they had to make a fuss about something and didn't really care what as long as it made headlines. So they trashed GCSE.

Have to say you Scots are remarkably uncaring about trains. My friend is slowly recovering, but the train has been rehabilitating on a small link line near Truro and refuses to enter stations. Poor thing.

Did referendums exist in 1707??? I'd be fairly sure the concept existed, but was it an actual part of the political landscape? Come to that, when was the first British referendum? Was it the European one?

I was being ever so slightly facetious. We'd only just finished having major wars over whether a monarchy based on the divine right of kings would prevail or one where parliament would have the real power. Took till 1931 till we had democracy with universal suffrage, Mind you it was suggested seriously in the 1640's during the civil war. Landowners would have none of it. But nobody asked the english what they thought about it either.

The first and so far only British referendum was the one to join the EU. Instigated by opponents of us joining cos they thought we would all say no. (yes I was old enough to vote in it) The number of UKIP supporters you meet who don't know that is staggering. I also remember the dire straits the economy was in at the time and scotland in particular owes a great deal to the EU regional fund as do bits of wales and the north of england. The kind of aid that would not have been forthcoming IMO from a southern biased government where politics got in the way of objectivity. Just look at thatcher's attitude-not to mention eddie george basically it's bugger the north we don't have any votes there anyway.

Our fishing grounds were part of the bribe the UK had to give to get in to the EU the we still have an empire and what about the commonwealth brigade having buggered up our opportunity to join at the early stages.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 2:39 pm

Indeed, and the Civil War only ended when a largely Scottish army came south under Monck, I think. That I remember, but you made me think about the referendum thing because it suddenly occurred to me that I knew nothing about them!

Gosh yes - we might have had universal suffrage in 1648 or so if Cromwell had a slightly broader vision, but it was an idea too far ahead of its time. Actually the Levellers weren't the first in the field, it was the Lollards and Jack Smith (if I've remembered the name right) attacking the inequities of the social structure: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" Lollardy was based in the South and Midlands in the C14th (says he desperately trying to remember:wah:) - I've no idea if the ideas reached Scotland. The end of the Civil War was the first attempt at getting the vote for women that I'm aware of. Just imagine what might have been if Cromwell had gone for it...

I wonder if there was moment at the meeting when the idea was presented when for half a heartbeat he really thought about it?

Probably not. That sort of personality reacts according to its prejudices because it just knows it's right.

spot: Yeah, I'd broadly agree (EVERY vote in the Athenian democracy was in effect a referendum: "Shall we kill Socrates?" "YEAH!"

) but I was talking of referenda in the modern sense. We are an elective dictatorship.

chookie: Thanks. So the Northern Irish one was the first? Blimey. I'm surprised they ever did it again, but I suppose once the precedent is set, it's set. chuckle. Quite right about refererenda.