We're going in circles now and Southpaw doesn't really know what he's talking about. We both want Scottish independence right?
Let's just hope they get that referendum through then so there is a huge ammount of pressure on Westminster to let SCotland go. Then I'll bring this thread back up in 10 years time when the Scottish are having to pay 70% taxes to keep there free uni and healthcare without SE England backing them up.
If you bothered to read my posts you would know. in 2004 Labour held a referendum only for the NW of England on wether the NW of England should have an assembly of their own like Walesand Scotland, they voted no.
What evidence do you need dummy? Go down to a libary and ask for one copy of the U.K. constitution and when they look at you like you got a D grade in politics then you will know.
Like I said there is no constitution, there is law, treaties and tadition that make up the framework of the U.K. political system, if you want to call that an uncodified constitution go ahead but it bears no resemblance to a traditional consituition.
A constitution puts legal restraints on a govt, what we have doesn't.
That is nothing to boast about; those clowns are about the worst organisation I've ever had the misfortune to deal with, apart from maybe RBS, wherever they're from.....
And if they know anything then they'll probably direct me to the massive line of law books we have at my local one. I'll happily admit its true we don't have a codified constitution enshrined in law but that doesn't mean we flat out do not have a constitution just because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "traditional constitution" should look like. Also if you're going to insult me can you be a bit more inventive than dummy?
How about you take the onus on and try and prove that an uncodified constitution deserves to be called a constitution 'because somone told me' isn't a good enough reason.
A constitution needs to restrain govt, that's the entire point of it, that's what the founding fathers of the USA designed it for to restrain govt.
Now in the U.K. any law can be changed at any time, so you now try and tell me how we have a constitution.
I've heard all the arguments for the uncodified constitution, but just because the textbook calls it that doesn't mean you have to agree. You think I'm ignorant or dumb because I don't agree with your AS textbook, what you dont grasp is that that book is an introduction to politics, not the final say on it.
Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. Really. This is like a maths student not knowing elementary calculus or an electrical engineering student who can't define Ohm's law.
Your university is letting you down. I'm not surprised you're upset about tuition fees if this is the standard of tuition you are receiving.
The UK has a constitution - there really is no argument to be had there. You're talking about 'traditional constitutions' but, uhm, the UK's constitution meets the requirements of Aristotle. That's pretty much as traditional as you can get. It is in fact the single documents like the US uses that are if anything, non traditional.
Oh and with the amount of ignorance you've displayed in this thread, throwing insults about other people's grades starts to look a lot like throwing stones in a greenhouse.
Not when I was paying my loan off they weren't. I don't put their incomopetence down to them being Scottish though, simply that they were a typically British quasi-governmental and therefore doomed to be useless
We can argue about the definition of what a constitution is all day (hopefully in a different thread), the fact you think it's a completely unviable argument that the U.K. doesn't have one shows your ignorance.
When I say the U.K. has no constitution I was talking about it in the context of the modern day, not ancient Greece, I'm sorry I didn't clarify that. Honestly I didn't think it was needed.
Dude, you are so full of it. Aristotle practically invented constitutional law and now you are saying that his definition is the wrong one?
Your studies have clearly taught you one thing that is key in politics - the inability to admit you are wrong, no matter how clear the evidence against you is.
What I don't get is how you don't already know this? Do they not teach you the origins of political theory? Do they even teach you political theory?
Anyway, pass on my regards to Prof Mickey Mouse and Seminar supervisor Pluto.