Forum menu
We'll go from a first-past-the-post system which allows a party with a minority of the vote to dominate, to a system of proportional representation which more accurately reflects the views of the people
This is just as wrong as it was the last time you stated it as fact, and the time before that and the time before that........
We'll get rid of the second-largest unelected chamber in the world.
You really hammer that non-issue don't you ? ! 😆
Well I guess that when you have so little to offer squeezing whatever you can from every morsel is all that you can reasonably do.
And of course we won't mention the monarchy ..... somehow that's different. Fantastic !
This is just as wrong as it was the last time you stated it as fact, and the time before that and the time before that........
Okay, explain to me why it is wrong.
The reasons are exactly the same as they were the last time!
Essentially Scotland elects 73 of its MPs using the very same FPTP system that is used in the “broken” UK system. The 56 remaining MPs are elected using a form of proportional representation where the results are weighted (D’Hondt method).
It’s very, very easy to verify that the system is not proportional by looking at the last election results.
ernie_lynch - Member
they will remove the bedroom tax
Hold the front page, that changes everything.
On a roll Ernie!!! 😀
And seriously...
All of a sudden the countless disadvantages of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK pale into insignificance as I discover that a future government will scrap the bedroom tax.
Funny how yS and it here try to frame the discussion in this context isn't it. Total BS, but good headlines.
Ben, these are straight questions as is Ernie's point about the HoL having bugger all to do with income inequality. At some point, yS has to step up and answer these basic questions. And no it's not any of the 3Bs to ask for that.
The €-project was openly mis-sold to the populations whose interests it should have served. IS is falling into the same trap, albeit in a different way. The € was always doomed to fail because it tried to override simole economic truths. As Ernie has pointed out on several occassions, yS is doing exactly the same.
political BS can trump economics in the short term, but in the medium term the latter always wins. You have been warned.....
Funny how yS and it here try to frame the discussion in this context isn't it
No they do not it was a point within a debate no one is saying vote yes end the bedroom tax. you may have noticed they wished for independence for a number of decades before the legislation. if anythign it is the no voters who cannot vote who are trying to trivialise this
As for the H of L Mleh IMHO nothing to do with inequality is overstating it somewhat- its is not a beacon of meritocrocy and equality [ your friends abroad admiring glances aside obviously] - but eradicating it wont bring about a socialist eutopia either but no one has claimed it will.
TBH its the same old the No voters who cannot vote try and say ther eis no good reason for the vote without explaining why its ok for scotland to be rule dby a prty they dont voite for an democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you
no one is claiming the changes will be radical or massive so I am not sure why you make th epoint
i dont think anyone disagrees on this tbh.
The € was always doomed to fail because it tried to override simple economic truths
You will be saying that for the next 40 years but it is still there despite your insistence it wont work.
may 2014She (dear Nicola) stated: "Let me be clear: as a result of Scottish Government action, there will be no need for anyone to fall into rent arrears or face eviction as a result of the 'bedroom tax'."
16 June 2014Mr MacAskill said Scotland had the opportunity to enjoy a brighter future than it had enjoyed for generations...He said: “We do believe this is a choice of two different futures for Scotland. If we vote yes, we will decide whether there is to be a bedroom tax, or whether there are to be weapons of mass destruction stationed on the Clyde.”
Candy, babies........
Still at least it's consistent. A currency is not an asset and the bedroom tax is not a tax. But, hey, since when has being accurate been more important that fooling the electorate! Frame the context of the discussion around mis truths - brilliant!
As for the H of L Mleh IMHO nothing to do with inequality is overstating it somewhat- its is not a beacon of meritocrocy and equality
The fact that the House of Lords has absolutely nothing at all to do with income inequality which has grown over the last 30 years isn't "overstating it somewhat".
It's pointing out a fact. We had a House of Lords 30 years ago when Britain was much more economically equal society than it is now. What changed that was the way people voted.
The House of Lords has no significant influence on the economic policies of the UK, as you well know. It's a complete red herring used by the separatists.
And btw the House of Lords is actually a fairly good example of "meritocracy" if that's important to you, and I get the impression that it probably is.
its ok for Scotland to be ruled by a party they don’t vote for and democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you
UK general election 2010: Scottish vote for Conservative or Lib Dems = 22.4% of electorate.
Scottish parliamentary election 2011: Scottish vote for SNP = 22.7% of the electorate.
Seems to be pretty much the same level of democracy to me.
...in a long list of red herrings and mis truths.
Smells vodka and irn bru in the air...... 😉
"TBH its the same old the No voters who cannot vote try and say ther eis no good reason for the vote without explaining why its ok for scotland to be rule dby a prty they dont voite for an democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you"
There are three problems with this:
1) it falls into the fallacy of "something must be done, I want to do something, anyone who doesn't want to do what I want to do is opposed to doing anything";
2) it is based on the false premise that Scotland's voting patterns are radically different from the party constitution of The House of Commons for a significant period; and
3) it is based on the false premise that electing a bunch of Labourites instead of Tories in the past 25 years would have made much of a difference - but for the entirely of the post 1997 Labour years when Scotland was "over represented", that was the time when the complaint was that the government was no different from the Tory wets. In other words, when "Scottish" politics was in the ascendant, it looked just like the English politics of the previous decade. BIG FING DEAL!
People who aren't Yes supporters aren't (necessarily) apologists for the ancien regime - a lot of them are just unconvinced.
(As I'm not voting in the referendum my opinion is of course Hamilton Academical).
The reasons are exactly the same as they were the last time!
And the reasons are still incorrect - we're still comparing a FPTP system with one that is based on proportionality. It's not truly proportional, because that has problems with local representation, but it's a big improvement.
One big question remains about this whole thing of course
Just imagine the repercussions if the separatists lose!
Do we think they will accept the Democratic will of the majority? Will they just shut up and go home to nurse a bottle of Buckie?
Or will it be just the beginning of another incessant whining session about how if they only had this or that (tax raising powers, proportional representation, interstellar spaceport) Scotland would be so much better, constantly setting their sights on what they can't have?
Victims define themselves by their pain, and what's more painful than wanting a bunch of things you can't have?
Not bad, you got in "separatists", "Buckie", "whining" and "victims" - I'll give that 7/10 for trolling. You should have mentioned Alex Salmon and fried food.
we're still comparing a FPTP system with one that is based [s]on proportionality[/s] on FPTP
56% of the MPs are elected via FPTP, trying to claim that the system is not based on FPTP just doesn't make any sense.
At risk of repeating myself;
We'll go from a first-past-the-post system which allows a party with a minority of the vote to dominate, to a system of proportional representation which more accurately reflects the views of the people
Is verifiably incorrect, just look at the election results, 45% of the vote gets 53% of the seats. The majority of people who voted in the Scottish election did not vote for the SNP, so the system doesn't accurately reflect the views of the people.
Just imagine the repercussions if the separatists lose!
🙄
How does the Scottish system as it currently stands compare to the FPTP system used for Westminster elections? Is it more or less representative. We should also bear in mind that the system in Scotland was set up to prevent the current situation from arising, if there was a movement for it, it could easily change to a full PR system in iScotland.
Separatists you say? Awesome 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
So based on this, if the separatists lose (because they were actually backed by the [s]evil Emperor[/s] Cameron all along to make it look like a battle), Cameron will become Emperor and take over from the Queen. I guess Gove could have a new role as Salacious B. Crumb
[img] 
[/img]
Of course the real implications if the separatists lose won't be embittered Yes voters taking to the hills to fight on.
It'll be the Westminster government taking revenge for daring to be so uppity. The Barnett formula will go, the Scottish NHS will come under very strong pressure to start privatisation the way the NHS in England has, and we'll probably end up ruled by the Tories again after the next election.
Ben, its worth at least an 8 for including the interstellar spaceport 😉
the Scottish NHS will come under very strong pressure to start privatisation the way the NHS in England has
Erm, isn't the Scottish NHS a devolved issue?
The majority of people who voted in the Scottish election did not vote for the SNP, so the system doesn't accurately reflect the views of the people.
What percentage of people in the last UK election voted for Conservative?
The Scottish system is better than the Westminster system. It's not perfect, no system is. It's certainly a lot more proportional than Westminster.
UK general election 2010: Scottish vote for Conservative or Lib Dems = 22.4% of electorate.Scottish parliamentary election 2011: Scottish vote for SNP = 22.7% of the electorate.
What percentage of people in the last UK election voted for Conservative?
10,703,654 Conservative votes out of a total electorate of 45,597,461 (wiki)
so (checks fingers) 23.5% - erm, better than the SNP... 😈
And btw the House of Lords is actually a fairly good example of "meritocracy" if that's important to you, and I get the impression that it probably is.
Yes hereditary birthright and political patronage is indeed a fairly good example of meritocracy...was it Marx or engels who raved about how good it was. Hilarious. [Mc Enreoe] you cannot be serious[/McEnroe]
1) it falls into the fallacy of "something must be done, I want to do something, anyone who doesn't want to do what I want to do is opposed to doing anything";
No it does not at all that is poor.
2) it is based on the false premise that Scotland's voting patterns are radically different from the party constitution of The House of Commons for a significant period; and
It is incorrect to claim this.- though you needed to add "radically" to make it true [ish]. the reality is the goivt they got was not voted for /decided by them but by england with every tory govt since 51.
3) it is based on the false premise that electing a bunch of Labourites instead of Tories in the past 25 years would have made much of a difference
No what i said was it would be a govt elected by the scots whether they make any difference is another argument all together.
Yes hereditary birthright and political patronage is indeed a fairly good example of meritocracy...was it Marx or engels who raved about how good it was. Hilarious. [Mc Enreoe] you cannot be serious[/McEnroe]
You don't appear to fully understand what meritocracy is, or maybe you just prefer a very narrow definition of the term.
The House of Lords is a fairly good example of meritocracy. [i]"A ruling or influential class of educated or able people"[/i] is a reasonable description of the members of the House of Lords.
I have no interest in meritocracy, I believe in rights not privileges. An Eton education might well get you a place in the House of Lords but that doesn't represent democracy to me.
If meritocracy on the other hand is important to you then on that count at least the House of Lords should meet with some approval from you.
Tony Blair, that champion of meritocracy, created "People's Peers" for the House of Lords, with no "hereditary birthright and political patronage" which apparently you don't approve of.
There are 57 People's Peers chosen for their "significant achievement" and independent from any political party. You might think that this is the way forward, I don't. I believe in the democracy not in a new specially chosen elite ruling the people.
And while we're at it you might be also shocked to learn that I'm not a great supporter of "social mobility". Meritocracy, social mobility, are used as an excuse by the pseudo-left to deny working people their legitimate right to political and economic power.
Out of interest - has anything that either of the sides of the debate has argued changed they way you are going to vote? Feel free to answer even if you do not have a vote for whatever reason.
Personally, the no campaign's negative approach with little in the way of actual active debate is making me go even further towards a yes vote. I'm now of the "if it's a no vote, i'm off to somewhere new" mindset.
Yes, generally in favour of devolved power BUT yS's inability to engage in active and sensible debate (3Bs in not active debate), the deceit, lies and BS of the principal protoganist(s), the fact that no party is promoting independence at all and the harm/havoc that a yes vote would create for all parties in the UK is making me go even further towards a no vote. I'm now of the "if its a yes vote, then canny is no longer an adjective that can be applied to a proud nation."
Only the badly (mis) led/mis-informed (BoD) or foolhardy would chose to leave a successful union in favour of one (ultimately) that has failed to deliver most of the intended goals. That is absurdity at the highest level. I would be more supportive, if genuine independence was being proposed along with the necessary planning to make that a success. To date, that is a glaring omission especially given the time available to prepare.
Fortunately, the CEO of my pension provider will decamp the business S of the border if required. He and his team remain fully deserving of their canny tag and have contingency plans in place.
Still the C'wealth Games should be fun and an opportunity to watch yS in all their glory. Saltires ready AS??
the harm/havoc that a yes vote would create for all parties in the UK is making me go even further towards a no vote
That's your main grip isn't it? You think it'll make your life a wee bit more difficult for a short period of time. My thoughts are that the government in westminster have made my life a wee bit more difficult for long enough.
Fortunately, the CEO of my pension provider will decamp S of the border if required.
What a strange thing to say. Given that very few businesses have indicated that they will move to rUK in the event of a yes vote (probably because it would involve much more expense than it would justify) the only sensible way for the CEO and his team to move south would be if they were no longer working for your pension provider.
Nope, I have it from the horses mouth. But your option is of course a valid strategy. The firm is only as good as its people and its AuM (assets under management). Both are very mobile.
Main gripe? Well yes, its important. We have a live demonstration of what happens when people are hoodwinked by political elites playing out for all to see across Europe. In the end, economic realities trump political BS. It was ever thus - the only uncertainty is how long this takes.
Of course if yS could start by presenting a credible plan for why things would be (a) different and (b) better it might be a different story. Until then, more interesting and fun to expose the deceit. 😉 Great essay questions for students albeit limited material to really get their teeth into sadly. If only.....
If that is not your number one reason for being against scottish independence what is that one thing?
It is the number one - both sides would be better off as part of a union. It has been and will be one of the most successful examples of its kind in history. As polling shows, most folk get this - it really isn't that hard unless fairly tales are more appealing (600 pages plus of them).
Even AS gets this - after all HE is proposing that rUk will remain in charge of the main instruments of economic policy. Only in his scenario, this will involve zero representation. Bizarre? Of course, he reserves the right to enter into a tax-war with the UK, but thats another story.
I tend to agree that both sides would be better off as part of a union of some description - Devo Max would probably be the preferred option for most. However, Devo Max is not on the ballot paper because David Cameron et al did not want it to be an option. When faced with the two remaining options, for me there is no choice but to vote for independence. This is because I want to live in a country that looks after the most vulnerable people and does not saddle the young with huge debts just so that they can get a good education. Those two things can never be fully achieved with Westminster in charge of the items that would allow that to happen.
Will independence cost me more than if Scotland remains part of the UK? - probably cost me a fair bit more. Do I think it's a price worth paying to live in a country that is governed more in line with my ideals? Definitely.
Well in one sense it's all academic anyway. In the other, any sense of a genuine, worthy debate ended with the publication of the book of dreams. From that point on, it's simply been a fun if painful (and ultimately negative for all of us) spectacle with the supposedly most able politician in the UK (sic) being exposed as little more than a snake oil salesman. When you enter the big boys playground, it helps if you are wearing long trousers. Still, every cloud.....
(Odd that similar tags are given to the likes of Gove and Farrage)
I doubt that anyone debates the ends merely the means......
AS is probably the most able politician in the UK. That does not mean that he is great politician, it just means that he is the best of a bad lot. Our current crop of politicians are universally shite.
Devo max was not on the menu because it suffers from one big problem, its a halfway house that for some it will never be enough, essentially it settles nothing and leaves the political uncertainty open, which affects business and infrastructure investment.
Remember 'Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead'? Well, it didn't, and neither would Devo Max.
AS is probably the most able politician in the UK. That does not mean that he is great politician, it just means that he is the best of a bad lot. Our current crop of politicians are universally shite.
That's even more depressing that reading the BoD - both ideas easily falsifiable though! 😉
This is because I want to live in a country that looks after the most vulnerable people and does not saddle the young with huge debts just so that they can get a good education.
There is no evidence that a separate Scotland would be in a better position to "look after the most vulnerable" if that's your goal (making people less vulnerable would be a better goal imo) and some convincing evidence that a separate Scotland would have to carry out significant cuts in social spending.
The evidence points in the other direction..... (Caveat, if anything)
some convincing evidence that a separate Scotland would have to carry out significant cuts in social spending.
Do you have any links to any high quality evidence that shows this? I doubt that you do as I can't see that kind of thing being independently funded so as to produce unbiased research findings.
Yes plenty, but it tends to get dismissed as bullying, bluffing and what was the third one......?
It does not need to be in a better position [ financially] it justr needs a commitment to it.
All but the most churlish would agree scotland will be a little nicer to its citizens than a Tory led govt
has anything that either of the sides of the debate has argued changed they way you are going to vote?
I cannot vote but I would in the main I would agree with much of what THM has said in that post up there [ I bet even this gets called troll or he may just take credit for edumakating me , hard to call 😉 ]
The more you read and the more they say the more Ys seem to be arguing for some strange hybrid half way house that is neither independence nor union.
As for ernie claim it is a polemic and it depends what figures you believe. I dont believe the figures of any politician nor economist but it seems fairly certain iS will try and be nicer to its citizens that a bunch of tories will
The more you read and the more they say the more Ys seem to be arguing for some strange hybrid half way house that is neither independence nor union.
The "Devo Max" option that the SNP wanted to be included on the ballot paper?
They do not have that option but in essence it does seem to be what they are arguing for.
They don't have that option, but they did ask for it. As I said earlier the best of the two remaining options is to leave.
I quite enjoyed reading this thought provoking article earlier today. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/07/17/dinner-with-no-voters-or-what-i-wanted-to-say-before-the-pudding-hit-the-fan/
As an example...
A Scottish government spokeswoman said Scotland would still end up with a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the UK, and any deal on debt must also include "a fair share of the assets of the current UK" – a formula Scottish ministers say [b]includes a deal to share the pound.[/b]The spokeswoman also claimed the NIESR's analysis was mistaken.[b] The findings "misunderstand how government debt works[/b].....
Says the woman who prefaces this accusation by showing (1) she doesn't know what an asset is and (3) she doesn't understand debt-to-GDP..
It would be funny if it wasn't so important
The evidence is based on two facts, firstly the European Fiscal Compact which Scotland would almost certainly have to comply with, and the level of debt that the EU is likely to calculate an "independent" Scotland would have.
And secondly an "independent" Scotland would not [i]"put itself at a tax disadvantage with the rest of the UK"[/i] is the promise being made, more specifically that's aimed primarily at corporation tax. Tax cuts, which is what this means, result in spending cuts.
Sorry I can't be bothered to provide links.