This is wildly off topic but it's quite interesting so let's bounce.
Off the top of my head:
Unelected and unaccountable monarch that acts as the head of state/head of the judicial system/head of church and a royal family that have been caught vetoing parliamentary laws and no one has any real idea of what their constitutional limits are.
You're vastly over stating things. They haven't been "caught veto'ing" anything. Furthermore, since the topic here is "democracy", there's a lot more to democracy than elections. The royal family - even the nutters - have popularity ratings that even the most popular politicians would kill their own mother to have. The fact they don't actually do anything active is, if anything, a shame.
Unelected House of Lords where members remain on the basis of hereditary principle and members appointed by political parties
Unelected "special interest" members in the house of commons like the Remembrancer, who are lobbying for the banks in the city of london.
It's a second chamber that can't produce legislation and can't veto legislation from the democratically elected Commons. All the power resides in the directly elected chamber, which is more than you can say for the EU (which is where this discussion originated).
No actual written constitution which basically gives the party with the biggest majority in the commons unlimited powers.
We have one of the longest running histories without despotic rule in the world - our organic and evolving constitution is part of the reason for this. You say that the party with the biggest majority in the commons have unlimited power - this is obviously not true, or else we might have seen a bit more radicalism, and the only periods during which we haven't had elections routinely in the past couple of centuries is during the two world wars - so obviously the party's can't do whatever it is they want, as they have the constant fear of losing the next election - in other words, democracy keeps them in check.
(So does that uncodified constitution and, until very recently at least, weak executive branch. Backbenchers can - and often are - "naughty" causing governments even with majorities to lose votes, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the USSR had a stellar constitution full of protections and fairness that got ignored as soon as it was inconvenient. The important thing isn't the manner in which a constitution exists, it's the degree to which it's respected; Parts of our constitution are literally a thousand years old, and it has respect.)
A broken and antiquated voting system (FPTP) that only favours the two biggest political parties.
I'll give you that one, but there are advantages to it, too. Our current government is showing the creaking limits of coalition governments, where people are never quite sure what they're going to end up with even if their party ends up in power. But there are obviously negatives, too.
What south east england (london) wants, britain gets. SE England has more MPs in the commons than Scotland, Wales and NI combined.
It has more people than those places combined, too. What erotic form of democracy ignores a population in favour of geographic size?
Oh yeah! The EU!
Scotland & Wales are governed by a tory goverment they didn't vote for.
That's democracy, baby. Not everyone can win. Coalition middle grounds are not a situation in which everyone gets what they want. The middle of any two positions is rarely the ideal solution. Again, since this post was in the context of the UK not lecturing the EU on democracy, you much surely see why this point obviously goes in the UK's favour? The larger an electorate, the more people you'll end up without the party they chose deciding their laws. This is basically tautologically true (and why I'd be more than fine with Scotland achieving independence).
House of commons has the power to remove powers and shutdown the national parliaments of Scotland, Wales and NI
Sure - parliament is sovereign, and a past parliament cannot bind a future one. We are one country, I don't really see an argument for a parliament being able to devolve power, but a subsequent parliament not being able to reclaim it - why would the democratic will of the former trump the latter? The same goes for devolving power down to local councils and Mayors.
Too much emphasis is put on Wales, NI and Scotland as being distinct entities. They're all part of the UK. Cornwall (in England) is very different to London - far more so than, say, Edinburgh. The North East of England has more in common with Glasgow than the South East, and at the last general election the Tories only got 2% less of the vote in Scotland than the Lib Dems (and double what Guy Verhofstadt's entire alliance got in the EU parliament elections). They were either the
winner or second placed party in Scotland for every election in the 20th century except for 1. The idea that they - or Wales, or NI - are Crimea-esque enclaves that England is holding down with our menacing population that seems to be popular at the moment is ridiculous.
