In the longer run it will be cheaper, allow for more open democracy, less pomp and ceremony and rebalance to country away from its London-centric attitude

Sea Lice numbers in the west coast of Scotland have exploded in recent years as a result of the increasing number of fish farms and their inability to effectively control sea lice numbers. This is not just a seasonal spike, the sea lice numbers have consistently been above the threshold set by the Scottish Government at many locations over the last 8 months, it is now time for the Government to enforce necessary 'cull orders' under section 6 of the Aquaculture Act 2007 Quotes from the Salmon and Trout Association Scotland: "Wild salmon and sea-trout are a key part of Scotland's world-renowned natural heritage, but the latest figures for wild salmon numbers are very poor indeed. We know that wild fish need a huge conservation effort. What we simply cannot afford now is fish-farms like those in Loch Fyne or Loch Torridon pouring millions of mobile young lice into the paths of migrating juvenile salmon and sea-trout. The question for Scottish Government is 'how much more evidence of failure to control lice do you need before you start to use your powers to protect wild fish?'" "Conservation bodies keep being told that salmon-farming is a highly-regulated industry, but regulations only work if they are enforced. Those parts of this industry that fail to control lice must now face robust enforcement action. The statutory powers to control on-farm sea lice numbers to protect juvenile wild fish from lethal infestations exist – they must now be used. Its time for the Minister to tell the inspectors to get tough." The levels are now upto 23 times ABOVE the threshold limit at some locations - action is needed now. Recent evidence shows that one juvenile sea trout was covered in over 500 lice which is unprecedented and almost certainly fatal. further information on sea lice infestations can be found at: www.standupforwildsalmon.org

A number of journalists and prominent Conservatives have recently, and gleefully drawn attention to the ease with which it might be possible for malicious elements to influence the leadership elections of political parties (parties to whom they hold no affinity). Upon exploration, I was shocked to discover that the idea was initially conceived (and propagated via Twitter), by an Anglican Priest- the Revd Marcus Walker. The following article provides a summary of the Revd Walker's actions: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html , but does not necessarily give indication as to the full ramifications of those actions (indeed- the author seems unaware of those ramifications). The Revd Walker is effectively suggesting that anyone can interfere in the leadership choice of a political party to whom they hold no affinity. It is hard to understand how the Revd Walker could be so stupid as not to recognise the implications of this. Possibly no party will ever be able to hold a democratic leadership election again- this is how serious his actions are. How can a party ensure that malicious elements be kept out of their own process for choosing a leader? There are only two obvious answers to that: a system whereby only MPs are allowed to vote in leadership elections (a solution which would notably impinge upon the democratic process); or- limit the voting to members only and significantly increase membership rates (so that casual saboteurs are not wont to interfere). Surely the horror of this second option is not lost upon you- it would in turn lead to a situation in which, in principle, the wealthiest among us could effectively buy the leadership of all major parties). Regardless of the Revd Walker's political leanings- this behavior, at best indicates deep stupidity, and at worst, indicates a complete lack of moral fibre. Furthermore- beyond the practical ramifications of these tweets- I was also very distressed by the apparent glee with which the Revd Walker seems to be conducting himself. This in particular, I find extremely unbefitting of the church.

The elections watchdog said it was ‘disappointed and concerned’ by the decision to scrap long-standing rules used in previous referendums to stop public funds going on political campaigning. The EU Referendum Bill, which will come before MPs tomorrow, also removes the 28-day ‘purdah’ period seen in last year’s vote on Scottish independence and the 2011 referendum on the voting system.

Say no more to Westminster rule. They fought to keep us in the Union, a union who doesn't care about the Scottish people, and have no interest in what we've got to say. All we're good for is our resources and a location to store their deadly nuclear weapons. £177 million pounds of Austerity cuts in Scotland introduced by our new Tory government, once again, a government Scotland dud not vote for, will push men, women and children into a further state of poverty. Our public services are being attacked, police, fire crews etc, but only in Scotland. I personally do not fancy sticking around to see the damage Cameron is going to do to Scotland, and will probably give Margaret Thatcher a run for her money. Time to say enough is enough. The Union is not in the best interests of the Scottish people.

If we are to turn this country around and save money, how is it right that Members of Parliament get such a large increase in comparison to other public sector workers. We have all had to make sacrifices over the last 7 years because the pay rises given to NHS workers in particular, have been at 1% or less, which has not been keeping up with inflation. This is all public money that comes out of all of our pockets (those that have, still are, or will be) paying income tax. I have emailed my own MP to ask him to act, so if everyone does this, then maybe we will be heard.

Because patents are getting bad service. Referrals aren't being made. Prescription changes being noticed at the pharmacy. False advertisement of opening times.

I'm glad to hear that you want more young people involved in the democratic process.  Young people can and do stand up to speak against global poverty, to ensure politicians tackle disease in africa and in emphasising the importance mental health.  We don't just have to listen, we can join their calls and make them count.   We need to talk about whose voice may count  There is a debate to be had and earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself told the Commons that he was happy to have a vote on whether 16-year olds can vote.  Sometimes it feels like MP's don't want young people to have their say as they had in Scotland during the referendum last year.   I want to make sure that someone who turned 16 and voted on whether Scotland should remain part of the UK will also be able to vote on whether the UK should remain in the European Union.   This referendum can be a once in a generation vote for all of us. All of us who wish to leave the European Union and all of us who wish to remain.   Regardless of where you may stand on Europe, those who stand to gain or lose by the decision the country makes in 2017 are not just parents in Portsmouth South but their children.   Their voice in this referendum should count as equally as yours and your own children.   A question on Europe matters to us, all of us  These aren't voices just about working or studying in Ireland, France or other EU member states.  It's not just about losing opportunities created here as a result of European funding for projects.  It's about if kids learning to code in schools today can work in online companies that have the potential to grow across Europe.  It's also about if, from 2020, they can grow up in the UK buying goods from the United States, Asia or the rest of Europe without paying customs or tariffs.  It's about those children who may not have turned 18 by 2017 answering to their own children in 2057 about what voice they had to ensure the UK led it's European neighbours to tackle energy security, climate change and free trade.   All of us should be included in this referendum   To me, it isn't fair to exclude 1,700 voices in your constituency over 16 but not old enough to vote in an EU referendum by 2017.   Young people who can give their own future to fight for their country but not vote to have their say on the country's future. Would you want 1,700 people in 40 years to feel they couldn't have a say?  Many people want a say about whether to remain in the European Union just because they didn't have one when the UK voted 40 years ago.  How would you feel not to have voted in 1975?  Its your turn to speak up  That's why it matters now to stand up in the Commons against people who say teenagers aren't interested in politics nor the European Union so they don't need to vote in 2017.  To stand up in the same Commons Chambers where the UK Youth Parliament met last November.   Maybe it's their problem if those critics can't get young people involved in the democratic process.  Maybe it's a problem if some schools are not as effective as others in instilling a sense of citizenship but that's something we can solve by improving schools.   Yet it's definitely our problem if the critics on changing the voting age undermine the principle of not taking big decisions away from the people most affected by them.

We the undersigned demand that in the interests of fairness, equality and social justice that the loyal Conservative boroughs, who voted for austerity and cuts to services on 7th May 2015 should have the honour of bearing the brunt of the £12bn worth proposed for the next five years. In the 2010-15 parliamentary term the inner cities and Labour voting areas suffered much more severe cuts than wealthier Conservative and Liberal Democrat constituencies, especially those with ministerial MPs. We further demand that the disparities of the previous term (2010-15) be overturned in this process over the next five years. There is a proposal for devolution of fiscal powers to the regions of England, but if the cuts continue at the same level as the previous five years, inner city areas may fall into irreversible economic decline, with no help on offer from central government. These areas have also given their fair share to the Treasury over the past five years, and this needs levelling up. Whilst this all appears disgracefully partisan and could be construed as an effort to garner votes, it would nonetheless undoubtedly have had an effect on the outcome of the election. So those who voted with clear understanding of the overall economic plan for the next five years, should now proudly accept their responsibility to shoulder their fair share of austerity cuts for the good of the nation, as they have displayed clear and open support for the proposed cuts to public services through a democratic process. Cutting services to a greater extent in Labour voting areas overlooks another glaring fact. Many people in those areas voted Conservative in both 2010 and 15. If these decisions are partisan and punitive as they appear to be, the many voters who remained loyal to the now incumbent government throughout are suffering cuts to their local services regardless. Fairness, justice and democracy are supposedly British values, and whether or not the disparities in the allocation of austerity measures have been deliberately implemented as an attack on Labour voters in England, this approach is quite simply unfair and undemocratic. By 2020 the Conservative long term economic plan will be complete and the UK will have made a complete recovery and will have "put a bit aside for a rainy day". It would be a shame for all of their most loyal supporters if they hadn't been given the opportunity to fully be a part of that economic recovery. So it's time to roll up your sleeves and do your bit for a brighter future for Britain. Those of us in the inner cities have done our bit, but we're with you all the way. We're all in this big society together! Right? Graphic of local government budget cuts 11/12 (Looks uncannily like the election outcome in 2015) http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/14/local-council-cuts-data http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/30/local-government-cuts-poorest-areas *(Footnote for potential signers: Signing the petition does not necessarily mean that you agree with, or believe in the proposed austerity measures. The campaign is more an attempt to undermine the basic austerity premise that the country is skint, and that we all need to do our bit to help. This is a challenge to the government and their supporters to justify themselves, and bring this question of fairness into the public domain, and hopefully go some way to unravelling the austerity myth for all to see clearly.)

Because FIFA under Sepp Blatter has been unethical, corrupt and evidence points to the 2018 and 2022 world cup bids as being decided by the buying of votes.Quatar would not have been voted for based on logic and evidence as it is too hot to host a world cup

The majority of the seats in Parliament are currently held by upper-middle class white males who attended public school and therefore do not represent the average Briton. David Cameron is related to the Queen (fifth cousin once removed). Thus, both the head of state and the head of government have only a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, i.e. the maintenance of the richest 1 - 5% in positions of power in the United Kingdom. The citizenry of the UK deserve representation in government. The Queen needs to be removed as head of state and, ideally, to be replaced by a president, elected by and for the people of the United Kingdom.

This is important as without political education or information then some young people do not believe that voting or which political party in government affects them. Politics has changed over the past decades, more people are interested in activism politics and not traditional politics. Without political information being given to young people early then they can have this knowledge for the rest of their lives. In the past, politics was past down from generation to generation, but now this isn't happening then the education needs to step in with advice. Education would be on how government works, voting systems, role of MPs etc, in order to keep the ability for teaching to be unbiased then it will not include information on ideology and political parties. Without political information then who knows what might happen in the future, will voter turnout drop like it did from 1997 to 2001? Sign this important petition to get the secretary of state for education to listen!