We have seen in the Scottish referendum that 16 and 17 year olds have voted on a rational basis and not as protest votes. I truly believe that if we are living in a so called "liberal democracy" or "representative democracy" then the voting in the general election must represent the whole population and therefore represent those of a younger age for the fairest outcome and the fairest election. The Scottish referendum had a ground breaking turn out of almost 85%. If we allow younger ages to become part of the electorate , then more of a fair change may come about.

The UK is hanging together by a thread - cries for Scottish Independence and English Devolution will not go away whilst the existing constitution is so unbalanced and clumsily constructed. There needs to be radical overhaul bringing together the 4 nations of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England in a fair and structured way that gives each nation proper representation. The future of the UK constitution should not be decided by political parties in their own best interests, but by a national conversation that includes representatives from all sections of society. We need all political parties to commit to holding a constitutional convention after the next election that will seek the views of all. If the UK disintegrates, it will affect us all - we have a chance to shape our own future and create a stronger, fairer UK that will survive the test of time. If you agree that the future of the UK should not be decided by politicians alone, then please sign the petition now.

Decisions that can affect the interests and safety of the people of London and Britain should be made in a way that allows the public to be confident that no-one involved in the decision stands to make personal or corporate gains from the outcome.

In a country that is supposed to be democratic with a media that is supposed to be unbiased it is yet again being wholly biased with its 2015 debates. Asking the usual suspects and then inviting Nigel Farage whilst leaving out other parties is undemocratic and unfair on the electorate who want to hear all parties views and policies so they can make a fair and informed decision on who they want to run their country! : SNP who are now the United Kingdoms third largest political party 80,000 + and rising : Greens who are a bigger party than UKIP : SSP To name just three who deserve the right to be heard equally in the media debates or are the media and the parties invited afraid of the impact that will have in the actual polling stations on the day? We as an electorate demand that all parties are heard equally in the debates in 2015

It is in danger of becoming a world wide epidemic with millions dying needlessly

The SSP campaigned along with the SNP and Scottish Greens for independence. They contributed heavily to Yes gaining 45% and to the pressure exerted on Westminster, which inevitably forced them to 'vow' to Holyrood greater devolved powers. Colin Fox, party spokesperson, was on the advisory board of Yes Scotland. It is, therefore, only right that the SSP should be represented during the discussion of greater powers. The membership, and support, of the SSP has vastly increased since the referendum, so to say they should not be invited because they do not currently hold representation at Holyrood is ridiculous. Through their increased memberships and support, it is evident that they do hold representation. Therefore, they should be present. For more info, see Colin Fox's article below: http://sspcolinfox.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/ssp-protest-our-exclusion-form-lord.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

There have been a lot of complaints from England about subsidising the other nations of the United Kingdom. There is also resentment from the other nations that England dominates all aspects of UK life, from parliament to the BBC and most other aspects of UK culture , language and political direction. As England subsidises the rest of the UK and must therefore be the richest and most able part of the UK, it follows that it must be the most capable of 'going it alone'. Removing England from the UK would therefore allow it to become more successful whilst also allowing the periphery nations, principalities, etc to continue to grow and prosper within the centuries old framework of the current United Kingdom. It will also allow England to make its own decisions on EU membership, immigration control, etc without affecting the position of the rest of the UK.

Here's what I Propose Its a simple system, there's a 'problem that needs solving' or a 'Decision that needs to be made' , the elected rep of the people aka 'Administrator of the peoples wishes 'should put forward solutions for each 'problem/decision' for the public to vote on, on a government website,, if the solutions get a no vote then another solution is needed, voting by internet, text, phone line, email etc with your national insurance number/bank/email verification to avoid double voting.This system of the public voting daily from the comfort of our home is only possibly due to the technology we all take for granted today, phones computers and internet etc, and allows us the Public of the British Isles to control what our government does thus ensuring it works in our best interests. For example The public to vote on creating our own currency not dependant on private banks- The printing of our own Bradbury pound so we don't borrow from credit card company/Private bank aka The Bank of England (yes its not a bank nor of England- just a corporation) would stop our national debt growing exponentially and declare previous debt unlawful ( common law without honour by the lender and lendee , prev governments) as in whats just happened with Wonga loans and thus this would clear our national debt, this would have a impact on how much tax you pay as there is no debt or interest of the government so in effect people would keep more of their wages for themselves. We can currently withdraw our pensions to our bank accounts, and our savings /current accounts from there we can purchase online Gold (by purchasing online we do not cause a 'run on the banks' where we all try to get the bits of paper ,cash that represents the money in the system of which there is not enough and you get civil disorder chaos etc), we then take our gold to the bradbury bank and if you bought £5000 GBP in gold then it is deposited for £5000 Bradbury pounds, The gold sits there as the peoples gold (no borrowing, gambling loaning etc it just sits there), you can go back to the Bradbury bank and walk away with the same physical amount of gold that you originally deposited, this way our gold is actually linked/traded in net weight not what the market is doing that week. This allows the UK public to move their hard earned life savings pensions to Gold to the Bradbury pound.This gives us a real tangible asset based currency. Rough estimates from my experience of credit and debit is that around 1/3 of the Tax you pay on your wages is paying the interest on the bank of england credit card that our government has borrowed. How much better of would you be without paying that interest? similarly look at mortgages, a mortgage of £1100 interest is around another £350 if its a capital and interest mortgage, so how much would your life change if a mortgage was £350 roughly a month, for some that would mean home ownership. We do not launch any kind of military action without public voting, yes even if its an aid drop with military acting as bodyguards it needs to be voted on. We should be able to have almost everything the government does as a vote able item on a government website. If The people would like me to be a ' Administrator of the Peoples wishes' who is also 'the normal guy' do feel free. I'm horrified by these councils closing housing estates to make luxury flats that the poor cant afford. I'm astounded at the bullshit planning laws that make it so difficult for you or me to buy some land and build a home on it for our families- funny the developers don't have this problem. AND YES I'M APPALLED AT HOW OUR COUNTRY WILL BE WRECKED BY FRACKING. I see myself as no different to the everyday man in the street with exactly the same rights as you. I do not see myself as being above the Law. which as i see it has problem at the moment namely Conflict of Interest, with a policeman acting under oath as a police constable and upholding common law and preventing a breach of the peace and then also acting under a corporation title of police officer enforcing corporation statutes (parliament legislation) onto Citizens, Surely the parliament statutes should only be applicable to Corporations and not citizens- thus being in essence a citizens safeguard ensuring corporations are controlled, this would also remove the conflict of interest in the policeman's job titles as he is only enforcing corporation statutes against a corporation not a citizen.If you like how i think and what i say then feel free to elect me as 'administrator of the peoples wishes' as i envisioned this truest form of democracy 10 years ago, i never wanted to get into politics but the world i see coming tomorrow for my boy and your children is not a free and pleasant world for innocent children to grow up in, just under the fracking issue they will have licences to frack 60% of the UK and that means that those fields and streams and meadows we want our children to have will be on land leased by

The chancellor has recently changed the annuity laws allowing people to to take their pension in a lump sum. Pensioners who recently cashed in their annuity, because they had no option at the time, are now stuck with pitifully small monthly pensions that will quickly lose their value with yearly inflation. This is especially true of small annuity funds with a value under £30'000. Due to the recession many people are trapped with debt that they have little chance of paying off. Allowing people to take their own money in a lump sum is just and fair. The chancellor has seen this and is changing the law, but what about those people who cannot take their money because the law does not allow it?

This is important to all of us as at current a large lump sum of taxpayers money goes towards paying the salaries of individuals who claim to be working for the care and benefit of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain. Courtesy of Google, I can tell you that there are 650 Ministers of Parliament. The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is £67,060. MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. Making their current annual salaries combine to a total worth of £43,589000. 43 Million, 589 thousand pounds. I'm sure you'll agree that £67,060 is an amazing price to retail one persons opinion at. Well, if they care so much isn't it about time that they show this; without their benefits courtesy of us!

In 2011, only 35% of young people voted in the Welsh Assembly elections, compared to 70% of those aged 65+. Young people are disengaged, disinterested and overlooked. But how can we expect young people to take an interest in something they've never been educated about? #TheAmendment will set in law things that Bite The Ballot have been doing for the last five years: > We believe local Electoral Registration Officers have a duty to make sure everyone is registered to vote. > If certain groups of people are less likely to be registered, then Electoral Registration Officers need to go that extra mile to get those groups on the register. > As well as targeting these groups, we believe Electoral Registration Officers should go into Welsh schools and colleges to run voter engagement sessions. The final thing that #TheAmendment will do is make registering to vote as easy and straightforward as possible: > We want to make it possible to register to vote by simply ticking a box at the bottom of a driver's license or a passport application form (this is only on an 'opt-in' basis - none of your details will be shared, unless you agree). On 24 September 2014, Members of the Welsh Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, voted in favour of our idea. But, the Welsh Assembly cannot make laws about voting or elections. This is decided at Westminster. That's why we are calling on all Members of the House of Lords to listen to us and vote in favour of #TheAmendment. And that's why we need you to to persuade them to listen, turn up to the debate - and vote.

For too long we have sung "Flower of Scotland" in official capacities despite it not being our national anthem. While the song had a relevance in the late '70s and '80s, we now have a devolved parliament and a collective push to build a better Scotland. What does it say about us that we sing Flower of Scotland? Why then do we consider it appropriate to sing a song which mentions our nearest neighbours, as if to define ourselves, we can only do so by exclaiming what we are not? Why do we sing about an indecisive victory from 700 years ago and not the wealth of ideas, inventions and progresses we have given to the world? Why do we choose not to sing about the wonderful things that make Scotland such a great nation? Why do we choose to sing a slow, backward-looking dirge in an attempt to energise and inspire our sporting teams? It is time for the people of Scotland to have a national anthem that energises and inspires them and their sporting teams. It is time for the people of this proud nation to think about their national anthem and choose a song which better represents them