Rjan:
But individual MPs don’t make decisions - parliaments do. So there’s no question of an individual “foreign” MP imposing his will on you - it is the parliament that does that, democratically.To say you have no control over the other MPs, because they represent different constituencies, is true at any level of democracy. Even if it is democracy so local that it is purely in your own village, you will still have no ultimate “control” on the other voters.
And I don’t think you’ve grasped my point that I’m not against “self-determination” as a matter of principle, it’s just not workable in any human community. Even in the confines of the family home - and it really doesn’t get any lower level than that - it is a flight of fancy to think that each can live exclusively in his own bedroom and that nothing that each may wish to do (particularly if their entire life must be conducted within its confines, and each house contains several generations of a single family) can possibly bear on the others.
I guess your mentality is very similar to that of the original European settlers of Australia, Africa, and America, of carving out a piece of land for yourself and making a living on it, but even there it was based on a political policy of wilfully disregarding the lifestyle and culture of indigenous people who already inhabited those regions, and the European states from whence they came always loomed in one way or another.
As for the miners you’re saying that it was right for the MP representing Grantham to impose policy in mining areas where she had no democratic mandate.As opposed to the MP’s in those areas being able to VETO or opt out of her imposition.In which case how would that be Yorkshire voters imposing anything on Lincolnshire voters.When Lincolnshire had no bleedin coal mines to decide to keep open or close and even if they had they then wouldn’t have given a zb if she wanted to close only those in her own constituency.IE the miners didn’t vote for Maggie to close their pits because she was never voted for by any constituent in any mining constituency.While it’s obviously you who’s all about imposing your unelected rule in other people’s constituencies ( countries ).
But you’re not understanding that the miners don’t have any inherent rights over those mines - they were not born inside them, in many cases the pit villages had not existed for more than a few generations, and many who resided in them originally hailed from elsewhere.
By the time of the strike, it was the British government that ran them for heaven’s sake and were paying their wages, and immediately before that large national concerns. The days when local private owners ran mines were the days when men regularly died down the mines, and their wives and kids were told to go and swivel - and it was national legislation in the late Victorian period that compelled owners to implement professional management and basic safety precautions.
It was also large national concerns that installed the railways that allowed coal to be moved around effectively. It was the country as a whole that provided the market for the mined coal which underpinned the large amount of employment in those mines.
You’re living in an imaginary world where coal miners were somehow originally local, self-sufficient, self-built communities who were just doing their own thing within their constituency borders, and who had an inherent right to control those mines against the will of anyone else in the country - against the lawmakers who regulated them, the financiers who provided the capital to build them, the taxpayers who provided all the infrastructure they depended on, the other workers who provided all the machinery that is part and parcel of the operation, and so on.
On that note whatever treaties Chamberlain fooled Hitler with
I rather think the record shows that Chamberlain was the fool!
the fact is it was Stalin who joined Hitler in invading Poland to impose Soviet Socialist rule in Poland.Just as Hitler invaded Poland for similar ■■■■ imposition reasons.The common link being that neither respected the right of self determination of others and their National borders.See the pattern here.
But neither did any other European nation! The Weimar regime folded partly because of the imposition of reparations and the refusal of the victors to go back to respecting borders. But even leaving aside internal European relations, each Empire was romping around the world all through the 19th century carving up the world geography for themselves. America was founded as an outpost of the British state, along with the involvement of a few other nations. Etc etc. The idea that a lack of respect for other people’s nations or geographic boundaries sets Hitler and Stalin apart is an utterly ludicrious analysis of the situation. In fact, there is nothing that sets them apart on matters of principle - they are notable only for initiating the sheer scale of death and destruction inflicted over such a short period of time.
It’s clear that I was making the case that our present system of democracy isn’t fit for purpose.In that there needs to be seperation of decision making on localised issues.IE industrial policy in mining areas for example.Or development policy which should only be decided at local level not MP’s from Lincolnshire deciding on mine closures in Yorkshire and Kent.Or MP’s around the country deciding development policy in the South Eastern counties which should be left to those counties to decide at local council level.Meanwhile no surprise that ‘your lot’ wish to turn all that round when it suits you.As in the case of Kahn and Sturgeon wanting to use the idea of self determination when it suits them to overturn a National democratic decision on what is unarguably a National issue in order to impose foreign Federal government on the country and turn it into a state of your USSR.You couldn’t make it up. 
As for Stalin and Hitler I said their invasion of Poland didn’t set them ‘apart’.It showed that they were Socialists acting ‘together’ in a typical Socialist agenda of aggressive expansionist invasion and Federal takeover of a sovereign Nation State among others.
As for local democracy this is real local democracy in action.No doubt you’ll abhorr it on the grounds that you think all of Europe’s nation states let alone Swiss cantons should be dissolved and the EU politiburo should decide everything just so long as it’s in line with your ideological aims.
ch.ch/en/demokratie/politica … l-referen/
As for Chamberlain.No ‘the record’ shows he was a genius who saved the country by fooling Hitler and buying us the time needed to stand a chance of getting the hardware together needed to fight with.Unless you think that the Battle of Britain could have been won with broom handles or the RAF was armed to the teeth with Spitfires and the trained pilots to fly them in 1938.While if you think he was an appeaser do you really think that he’d have over seen and implemented that re armament programme while at the same time calling for peace for the German public’s consumption.While no doubt you’d have been supporting Stalin on the grounds that bringing Europe into the Soviet Union before Hitler could get us first would have been a better move for us all.