^^ Point missed I think zokes

can you tell me when Scotland or wales last voted for a tory govt?
It doesn’t matter. The populace of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland voted in a General Election for Her Majesty’s Government, which sits in Westminster. The lot that are now in power got in because of how the UK’s population as a whole voted. That’s how it works

We got this govt because of how England voted though not how the whole of the UL voted as England has the numbers. How about you tell me the last time there was a govt that did not have the majority in England? and then compare that to when it did not have the majority in Scotland and wales…basically the uk govt is chosen by England and the others just have to lump it

It is how it works BUT the issue is whether it is fair or democratic and you made no comment on that.
Whilst this continues to happen it will never be possible to silence the voices asking for independence as they will keep literally getting ruled by who england chooses.

Imagine a govt you dont vote for setting the laws for your country …that is democracy in action ?

Wouldn’t it have all be simpler if Scotland & England had been a proper merger and they’d simply done away with all this “nation within a nation” stuff back in 1706?

I’m pretty sure Scotland votes for 59 seats in Westminster, Junkyard. Where’s the unvoted for government?

I never said unvoted as they do vote and they voted labour and they got the govt England chooses thats how- libs and tories finished 3rd and fourth in scotland and had less than labour in terms of votes that is my point – it matters what england votes not what Scotland [ or wales] in the general election

yes they get a say but that say is not critical in deciding who governs them and set their laws so in that sense it is not democratic.

yes they get a say on who governs the whole UK but the critical factor in deciding this result is how england votes not how scotland votes

The fact this happens means there will always be some pressure for independence and whether you wish to be pro union or anti union it is not hard to see why this is unfair, undemocratic and causes resentment.

Imagine england[ uk] was in an union with the EU and the EU kept giving us leaders we had not voted for – lets say we vote tory and keep getting socialist govts…would there be pressure for change in this union here? Would all those claiming the current scenario is fair and democratic also maintain it is fair then? [ Of course not]
Would they further accept that the EU got to set the question to ask if we wished to leave or that all the EU had to decide is we could?

There’s about as much merit in your argument as me complaining that because Scotland voted Labour, the Conservatives didn’t get an actionable majority at the last election, so England is governed by the coalition.

Scotland at least has some variation in this due to devolution and the Scottish Parliament. England is stuck with the MPs Scotland votes for, end of. Is that democracy at work?

Junkyard – Member
because they voted labour and they get the govt England chooses thats how- libs and tories finished 3rd and fourth in scotland and had less than labour in terms of votes

How explicit do I need to make this point?
yes they get a say but that say is not critical in deciding who governs them and set their laws so in that sense it is not democratic.

yes they get a say who on governs the whole UK but the critical factor in deciding this election result is how england votes not how scotland votes

The fact this happens means there will always be some pressure for independence and whether you wish to be pro union or anti union it is not hard to see why this is unfair, undemocratic and causes resentment.Your argument only stands as long as you view Scotland as something other than a region of the UK. Take away it’s status as a separate nation with a Union of nations and there is no “democratic deficit”. For lots of the posters on STW (and across England as a whole), this is the fundamental point of misunderstanding. It also leads to all those tiresome questions about “independence for Shetland/Cornwall”.

The Flying Ox – Member

Scotland at least has some variation in this due to devolution and the Scottish Parliament. England is stuck with the MPs Scotland votes for, end of. Is that democracy at work?Name the last Labour UK government which had a majority less than the number of Scottish Labour MPs? England gets the government it votes for.

Edit: the current coalition would not have been necessary had it not been for the Scottish Labour MPs. There would have been a Tory majority.

the current coalition would not have been necessary had it not been for the Scottish Labour MPs. There would have been a Tory majority.

That’s my point. You can’t complain about England forcing its parliament on Scotland whilst at the same time agreeing that the government the England voted for was scuppered by the Scottish vote.

Other than the fact that this is the only time that’s happened as opposed to it being a regular occurrence the other way round, you have a point.

That’s my point. You can’t complain about England forcing its parliament on Scotland whilst at the same time agreeing that the government the England voted for was scuppered by the Scottish vote.

shame someone else had to make it for you 😛

So the union means no individual country gets the govt they wanted or voted for [ this time any other examples BTW], my mistake it is certainly working and very democratic I withdraw everything i said 😉

This is just another example of how it is not working tbh.

Damn you druidh I did not know that at it does weaken my view [ though it is the exception not the rule] but this is stw so we dont admit that bit obviously

Okay. How about we look at when Scotland got its own parliament and so from which point in time your argument has held any real relevance*. 1997. Who did Scotland vote for? Who got in power? How about 2001? 2005? Were you unhappy about having the English electoral result forced upon you then?

*That’s not meant in an insulting way, by the way. It’s just that prior to 1997, you sucked up the Tory government you didn’t vote for just the same way as my home town did, and Liverpool, and any other number of Labour “strongholds”.

Most North Sea UK oil lies in Scottish waters. It is the country’s biggest asset, but a diminishing one: oil tax revenues are projected to fall to 0.2 per cent of UK GDP by 2022/23, from 0.7 per cent now. Even including its geographical share of revenues, Scotland would have had a fiscal deficit of 10.6 per cent in 2010. Moreover, its banks could be an outsized burden. Who would be lender of last resort in the next banking crisis? Mr Salmond appears to want more oil revenue while insisting Scotland’s banks are London’s concern. The thing about independence is that it quickly dispels such complacency.

Lex column in today’s FT

Even including its geographical share of revenues, Scotland would have had a fiscal deficit of 10.6 per cent in 2010.

And the UK fiscal deficit over that period was 10.4%. Working it out on a per capita basis, Scotland would have been better off outside of the UK.

The Flying Ox – Member
Okay. How about we look at when Scotland got its own parliament and so from which point in time your argument has held any real relevance*. 1997. Who did Scotland vote for? Who got in power? How about 2001? 2005? Were you unhappy about having the English electoral result forced upon you then?

The Scottish electorate has been increasingly unhappy with all UK governments, especially since New Labour. Hence the increasing mandate for further devolution and the rise in voting for the SNP. As I’ve said previously, unless the UK parties change direction then despite the result of any forthcoming referendum, Scotland will end up a lot more autonomous in the short term and independent in thelonger term.

Scotland would have been better off outside of the UK.

Or in the same ballpark anyway, even according to Stephanie Flanders who is hardly likely to skew the numbers towards the SNP view.

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Please, take your pick. All I ask is you bear in mind one other number – related to one other obvious, but very important fact. Namely, that Scotland is not the only part of the UK that is currently spending more than it raises in revenues.

If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net ‘subsidy’ for the average person was well over £2,000 last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

Ditto look at GDP per capita?

I sincerely hope the reason for the split is not money, as that (*in forum terms) would make all the Scots Thatcherites/Tories now wouldn’t it …..

I think it’s a mistake (as I think big will rule in the modern world, so making yourself smaller isn’t a great plan, and I’m not sure how ‘big’ ‘Europe’ will be and how we would fit into it), however I’d prefer it (for both Scotland and Wales) to the the absolute bollox of 1 man, 1 tax system, slightly different returns carry on we have now.

Can I also remind everybody of the difference between bankers and politicians – when bankers (*and it was a LOT LOT more people than them who are responsible for overspending mess we’re in) cock it up they get culled, when politicians cock it up they get replaced (*ie there is NO saving…)

I sincerely hope the reason for the split is not money, as that (*in forum terms) would make all the Scots Thatcherites/Tories now wouldn’t it …

It isn’t money but money is always discussed because unionist politicians say Scotland couldn’t afford to be independent.

Again according to FT:

If Salmond, a canny nationalist, has his way, the people of Scotland will vote for independence in a referendum in 2014. Countries of its size (5.2m people) can easily go it alone (think Denmark) but Scotland has a bloated public sector and is currently subsidised from London. Politically, independence may be unassailable; economically, Scotland would face a rocky first few years.

Scotland is a rich country: income per capita of £20,200 is not far short of the UK average of £21,000. Gross domestic product in 2010 was £116bn. But the numbers hide some worrying trends. The Scottish economy is 4 percentage points smaller now than four years ago. It is more sluggish than both the UK – growing by just 1.6 per cent between the trough in the second quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2011, compared with 2.7 per cent in the UK – and similar-sized European Union countries, according to official data. Public spending is half of GDP. With a fiscal deficit in 2009/10 of 17 per cent of GDP, Scotland would attract a low credit rating. Rather than Ireland, which was the Scots’ model for years, a better comparison might be with Slovakia. It is the same size, rated A plus/A1, and has 10-year bond yields of 4.5 per cent against the UK’s 2 per cent.

teamhurtmore – Member
The Scottish economy is 4 percentage points smaller now than four years ago. It is more sluggish than both the UK – growing by just 1.6 per cent between the trough in the second quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2011, compared with 2.7 per cent in the UK – and similar-sized European Union countries, according to official data. Public spending is half of GDP.

And that’s a good argument for staying in the Union?

“Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it”