[Closed] This SNP rout.....

you don't know that, and can never unless they get up off their arse. Not voting transfers your vote to someone else, gives others vote that wee bit more power.

What a load of balls, you're clearly not aware of the concept of abstention then.

Anyway, my point was that the SNP keep talking about the mandate of the people, as I've stated many times, they've still not got that, despite what the SNP voters keep spouting off about.

You must be livid with the tories then and their mandate to govern. heck they even get to govern in a country where they got less than 15 % of the vote

What is your point then if you get less than 50% you dont have a mandate?
If this is your view then you really do need to look at how FPTP works and see how few govts we have had that could ever claim to have achieved this

In the 1955 General Election the Conservatives got more than 50% of the vote in Scotland.

Thanks for that I stand corrected on my guess.

the SNP keep talking about the mandate of the people, as I've stated many times, they've still not got that

Then no govt in the UK has ever had this [ assuming we are now counting non voters as well in this sum]

hagi - Member
you don't know that, and can never unless they get up off their arse. Not voting transfers your vote to someone else, gives others vote that wee bit more power.
What a load of balls, you're clearly not aware of the concept of abstention then.

I'm all for a none of the above option. But that isn't the system we live under. You can only play by the rules as set out at the beginning of a campaign, and in Britain, that means abstainers, non voters and half arsed ****s voting power gets transferred to the voting population.

[quote=Junkyard ]When was the last time a party got near 50% in a country in a election in any part of the UK?

I've checked. '59 was as I suspected the last time a party got close to 50% share of the vote (assuming I can roll all the Conservative factions together) - though that was for the UK as a whole, where they got 49.36%

However you were asking about share of the vote in a single constituent country, and given that criteria >50% was achieved a lot, lot more recently than that, in an election most of us here voted in. Any guesses for year and country?

You must be livid with the tories then and their mandate to govern. heck they even get to govern in a country where they got less than 15 % of the vote

What country are they governing where they got less than 15% of the vote? Was it not a UK general election? But yes I am livid with the tories 🙂

I've kinda sidetracked the argument here in my anti-SNP rants, I'll hold my hands up to that, my point is around the wild jubilation of the SNP fans as opposed to the actual election results.

However you were asking about share of the vote in a single constituent country, and given that criteria >50% was achieved a lot, lot more recently than that, in an election most of us here voted in. Any guesses for year and country?

The mockery that was the AV referendum?

Any other areas that have traditionally been separate countries

Traditionally? You can rule out Scotland, that was a Roman invention.

What a load of balls, you're clearly not aware of the concept of abstention then.

Anyway, my point was that the SNP keep talking about the mandate of the people, as I've stated many times, they've still not got that, despite what the SNP voters keep spouting off about.

If you want to protest or abstain you should spoil your balot. You can't roll everyone who didn't vote into a vote against XYZ (or a vote for them). All you can do is make judgements based on those who did.

It's amusing how what defines a mandate to do something seems to shift depending on who's in power and what the results looked like.

"You dont have a mandate, you're in a minority government"

"You still don't have a mandate, less than 50% of the votes were for your party"

"No, you still don't have one because you have less than 50% off the entire electorate, including those who didn't vote"

Wonder what the next reason will be...

5thElefant - Member
Traditionally? You can rule out Scotland, that was a Roman invention.

Aye, the Romans invented a magical Legion disappearing machine.

5thElefant - Member
Any other areas that have traditionally been separate countries

Traditionally? You can rule out Scotland, that was a Roman invention.

Not really the formation of Alba probably had more to do with the joining of the pictish and gaelic crowns along popularity of the church, along time after the romans left.

[quote=whatnobeer ]It's amusing how what defines a mandate to do something seems to shift depending on who's in power and what the results looked like.
"You dont have a mandate, you're in a minority government"
"You still don't have a mandate, less than 50% of the votes were for your party"
"No, you still don't have one because you have less than 50% off the entire electorate, including those who didn't vote"
Wonder what the next reason will be...

You don't have a mandate because you're in opposition to a party which got an overall majority of seats in this election.

If you want to protest or abstain you should spoil your balot.

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you made the rules 😀

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you made the rules

Any other way you can think of that doesn't involve sitting on your arse and not voting? How else can you show your dissatisfaction or disillusionment. You can't infer anything from none voters other than that they didn't vote.

You don't have a mandate because you're in opposition to a party which got an overall majority of seats in this election.

A pretty strong mandate from the people they represent, no?

You can't infer anything from none voters other than that they didn't vote.

That's patently false, you can infer a lot of things, one of which might be that no party stands for what they believe etc.

That's patently false, you can infer a lot of things, one of which might be that no party stands for what they believe etc.

You really can't. You could hypothesis lots of reasons, but you can't infer anything, as you have no data.

hagi - Member

Anyway, my point was that the SNP keep talking about the mandate of the people, as I've stated many times, they've still not got that, despite what the SNP voters keep spouting off about.

So obviously you also think the current government lacks a mandate

I don't agree with anything they say, but 3.5 million people voted for UKIPs, and got nothing.

1.5 million people voted SNP and got everything.

FPtP only works in a two party system.

[quote=aracer ]However you were asking about share of the vote in a single constituent country, and given that criteria >50% was achieved a lot, lot more recently than that, in an election most of us here voted in. Any guesses for year and country?

As nobody seems to want to guess, and just in case anybody is interested it was 1997.

FPtP only works in a two party system.

I think that's something we're all agreed on.

Oh go on aracer, I'm interested, what country was it ?

Wales.

Not really the formation of Alba probably had more to do with the joining of the pictish and gaelic crowns along popularity of the church, along time after the romans left

Nope, Battle of Dunnichen Moss or Nechtansmere in 685 where the tribes united under under King Nechtan against the Northumbrians, pushing them back as far as the Tweed to pretty much where the border stayed since. It also formalised the concept of a High King (Ard Righ nan Albaeinn, High King of All Scots, note king of the people not of the land) holding sway over the other tribal kings. At about this time the Scots were settling the west coast, eventually defeating the Picts in around 834. In spite of the move from Pictish throne to Celtic, they kept the same ruling structure which lasted till the fall of McBeth in 1057 which ended the High King/sub King ruling structure.

Not really the formation of Alba probably had more to do with the joining of the pictish and gaelic crowns along popularity of the church, along time after the romans left

Nope, Battle of Dunnichen Moss or Nechtansmere in 685 where the tribes (given names by the Romans as mentioned in Tacitus' Life of Agricola) under King Nechtan against the Northumbrians, pushing them back as far as the Tweed to pretty much where the border stayed since. It also formalised the concept of a High King (Ard Righ nan Albaeinn, High King of All Scots, note king of the people not of the land) holding sway over the other tribal kings. At about this time the Scots were settling the west coast, eventually defeating the Picts in around 834. In spite of the move from Pictish throne to Celtic, they kept the same ruling structure which lasted till the fall of McBeth in 1057 which ended the High King/sub King ruling structure.

Stone commemorating the battle of Dunnichen Moss - no christian or celtic symbology
[img] [/img]

whatnobeer - Member

I think that's something we're all agreed on.

Nah, a lot of people don't think fptp works in a 2 party system either.

OK then, was this the best result since 685 AD ?

Some doubt now being placed on Dunnichen Moss as the battle site. It may actually have been at Dunachton near Loch Insh in Strathspey & Badenoch.

Nah, a lot of people don't think fptp works in a 2 party system either.

True that. It makes more sense, and would lead to fewer distorted/unrepresentative governments though.

I think it's clear now that the UK has moved way past being just a 2 party or event 3 party system.

Some doubt now being placed on Dunnichen Moss as the battle site. It may actually have been at Dunachton near Loch Insh in Strathspey & Badenoch.

Can't see that myself - the stone is marking something special, and very few invading forces would bother with the highlands. Even the Romans pretty much called it quits just below the highland line after Mons Graupius (I think I remember someone making a case for Bennachie being that site)

ChubbyBlokeInLycra - Member
Not really the formation of Alba probably had more to do with the joining of the pictish and gaelic crowns along popularity of the church, along time after the romans left

Nope, Battle of Dunnichen Moss or Nechtansmere in 685 where the tribes (given names by the Romans as mentioned in Tacitus' Life of Agricola) under King Nechtan against the Northumbrians, pushing them back as far as the Tweed to pretty much where the border stayed since. It also formalised the concept of a High King (Ard Righ nan Albaeinn, High King of All Scots, note king of the people not of the land) holding sway over the other tribal kings. At about this time the Scots were settling the west coast, eventually defeating the Picts in around 834. In spite of the move from Pictish throne to Celtic, they kept the same ruling structure which lasted till the fall of McBeth in 1057 which ended the High King/sub King ruling structure.
Stone commemorating the battle of Dunnichen Moss - no christian or celtic symbology

I'll bow to your knowledge, I'm far from a historian. My general point was that the formation for scotland as a concept came a while after the romans.

Although, a query, can you really class a Pictish battle as the defining of the scottish nation? When the structure of it become largley Celtic, with the assimilation of the picts? Surely when ever the moment Scotland becomes a nation is when this happened? (given that the gaelic that survives today is closer to ulster gaelic and not welsh/britonic type gaelic of the picts?)

Willing to be educated here, I've only ever read bits and pieces here and there. Personally, my sense of the formation of scotland is that it is a coming together of native mainland tribes and ulster tribes that moved over, albeit with the latter being the dominant?

You really can't. You could hypothesis lots of reasons, but you can't infer anything, as you have no data.

What data like [url= http://survation.com/apathy-in-the-uk-understanding-the-attitudes-of-non-voters/ ]post election polls you mean?[/url]

So obviously you also think the current government lacks a mandate

Not quite, the current government aren't proclaiming themselves across the media to be the voice of a nation, merely the majority vote winners.

Anyway, this thread seems to have taken a far more interesting turn, so I'll shut up now 🙂

Not quite, the current government aren't proclaiming themselves across the media to be the voice of a nation, merely the majority vote winners.

Cameron's already stated he has a mandate to hold the EU referendum, so not quite.

What data like post election polls you mean?

That's taking inference from data collected after the election and is of course valid. But that's different from inferring things from the mere fact that someone didn't vote.

Regardless though, I'm still of the opinion that unless you actually can't get to a polling station you should spoil your vote. I'd be pretty obvious if Candidate x got 25% share of the valid votes but 50% were spoiled....

Aye, the Romans invented a magical Legion disappearing machine.

Iirc the members of that legion that kept turning up in other legions and other parts of the Roman world.

piemonster - Member
Iirc the members of that legion that kept turning up in other legions and other parts of the Roman world.

Got a reference? I chased this up a few years ago but couldn't find anything and I thought there would have had to be survivors. (In Latin is ok)

It was on the telly.

TBH, the more I think about it the more sketchy my memory gets. Made worse by being on the telly and all that a producers influence entails.

I'll try and remember what it was on though. It's one of those things where the legend gets the most focus because it's the most exciting.

Nobody wants to hear about the vanishing of a legion due to an administrative decision from the finance department.

goes digging into the dark recesses of my mindapplies strong content filter***

Try using "prosopography" in your search

piemonster - Member

Next you will be telling me the SNP's new MP's didn't walk in Westminster yesterday wearing only woad paint and with their boabies hanging out! Especially Mhairi Black,she will have one like a bairns arm holding an orange.

Pictures or it didn't happen

Iirc the members of that legion that kept turning up in other legions and other parts of the Roman world.

If that's the Ninth Hispanic Legion you're talking about, another story was that it was disbanded in disgrace which is why it suddenly disappeared from the record books

(In Latin is ok)

nono legio hispaniola - don't know the Latin for "try googling for"

can you really class a Pictish battle as the defining of the scottish nation? When the structure of it become largley Celtic, with the assimilation of the picts? Surely when ever the moment Scotland becomes a nation is when this happened? (given that the gaelic that survives today is closer to ulster gaelic and not welsh/britonic type gaelic of the picts?)

yes - the Romans identified the tribes and documented that they were largely seperate, the first time they united (or at least the first time it was documented) was at this battle. That would argue that this is the point at which Scotland as nation was first conceived. the result of the battle was that the invading Northumburians (later merged into England) were pushed back to the Tweed, largely defining the southern border to where it is today, so going some way to defining the land mass that's Scotland. The emergence of the Celts as the dominant culture did not change the ruling class structure, although there would have beena n impact on language given that the Scots came from the north of Ireland. Kings of Scots from Cionad mac Alpin (first celtic king) to Macbeth were buried at the Row of the Kings on Iona, so the cultural effects of the battle of Dunnichen Moss survived till 1057. so I'd say yes, that's a defining moment in the birth of a nation.

No one defining moment in history defines a nations right to exist. We are all part of a polyglot society formed through countless assimilation of migrations of people. A nation will exist when the people today vote for it. They said no.

Some doubt now being placed on Dunnichen Moss as the battle site. It may actually have been at Dunachton near Loch Insh in Strathspey and Badenoch

One of the very few stones celebrating an event rather than having some form of religious significance = Big Event
Battle scenes = Important battle, probably not a Halo 3 tournament
Mounted soldiers wearing what looks like Saxon headgear (noseguards) = getting into a fight with someone from Down South

All points to the biggest event of the time, which for me was battle against the Northumbrians.

However, bottom right hand corner, guy being eaten by dinosaur whilst trying to fight it off with a fish - not really sure what that's about
EDIT - BUT, top right hand corner - mirror. We all like to look our best for historical events, you never know when someone's going to turn up witha big block of stone and a hammer and chisel.

1.5 million people voted SNP and got everything.

Yes, but they only stood in 59 seats. To give is some context, if they got the same proportion of votes all over the UK, they would have got 16,525,000 votes. The Tories only got 11,334,520 but got a majority in the UK.

Yeah, and to put that in context, if KHHC had got the same proportion of votes all over the UK in 2001 they'd have got 15,309,537 votes.

It's a shame that they didnt.