[Closed] This SNP rout.....

our definition of austerity explains what the aim of austerity is, ie, to reduce a deficit. It doesn't mean that reducing a deficit is the definition of austerity.
Well said. How long will it take to sink in do you think?

It explains all the austerity measures
I am sure they will be delighted to read your correction of their analysis
Bon Chance

Enrie,

btw i read you comments on the other thread about how you are happy with the election results, interesting reading, along with the contents of this thread, I get the impression you are almost taking a burn it all down approach? 😆

Will be interesting to see how the SNP role at Westminster plays out. Will Cameron give them dedicated questions at PMQs and even chairmanship of various select committees inc Scottish Affairs Committee. To do so gives them profile but I have an inkling he'll do so not least as to further push Labour to one side and the sight and sound of Salmond on a weekly basis will shore up the Tory vote.

Bon Chance

i read you comments on the other thread about how you are happy with the election results

I've just had to check to see whether I had a funny moment and actually said that, I was relieved to see that I hadn't.

Of course I'm not happy with the election result. But I am happy that I got quite a few things which I had wished for. I dare say that approximately 50% of Scots share a simular level of satisfaction.

Among the things which I was pleased about was Labour getting wiped out in Scotland, the LibDems getting hammered beyond my wildest dreams, Nick Clegg retaining his seat, Vince Cable losing his, Ed Balls losing his, UKIP doing far less well than predicted a year or so, the Greens not doing too badly, the Tory vote relatively very low. There's a lot of very positive stuff there - it is perfectly feasible to assume that could easily not have happened that way.

I did actually also include in that post : Of course the big negative is five more years of a Conservative government more right-wing than Thatcher, that's nothing to celebrate - they will continue to screw the British people and the UK economy.

But we've been in situations when British politics has appeared a lot gloomier imo.

happy was a bit of a stretch I guess, was just curious as it was an interesting opinion, and not too far from my own, particularly regarding the death of scottish labour, I think we need to take it further into the scottish election, as they just aren't learning their lesson at all. Hopefully they green can fill a large part of the void they will leave. I'd hate for the SNP to dominate holyrood completely.

I'd hate for the SNP to dominate holyrood completely.

ernie_lynch - Member
I'm fairly confident that the Tories aren't in power in Scotland so your wee joke whilst clearly very assuming obviously loses some of its irony.

It's all a bit confusing for some of us

That's probably because autocorrect spelt assuming instead of amusing.

they will continue to screw the British people and the UK economy.

We read so much about what is wrong but so much confusion about what is right 😐

While the SNP certainly ran a good campaign and Nicola Sturgeon was be far the most impressive leader of the political parties much of the SNP success is really down to Labour's failures.

Scottish Labour ran a lazy negative campaign bereft of ideas or any positive reason to actually vote for them.

Scottish Labour, already in its death throws following the referendum and the previous leaders resignation, instead of taking a serious look at what its doing north of the border instead parachutes in a Blairite careerist chancer in the form of Jim Murphy.

After some brief initial overtures to "Glasgow Man" - lapsed Labour voters in the west of Scotland who voted Yes in the referendum, followed by some ridiculous nonsense about drinking at football matches the negative campaigning got turned up to 11 and Scottish Labour's entire message became about why not to vote for someone else.

To his credit he had his Labour drones very much on message not a single one of them made an utterance that deviated from "SNP Baaaddd!" "Vote SNP get Tory" and "The Largest Party gets to form the Government" for the entire campaign. But when your message is so lacking in imagination, positivity and credibility it doesn't really matter how often you repeat it.

Meanwhile while the Tories were putting together witty videos showing Ed Milliband dancing to Alex Salmond's tune what they were really doing was making him dance to their tune.

After losing some initial ground on non-dom tax the Tories played Milliband like a cheap fiddle over the economy and possible coalition arrangements.

He failed to make it clear the Labour was not responsible for the banking crisis and he failed to drive home the fact that the Tories hadn't actually delivered austerity and had instead actually been far closer to what Labour spending plans would have been.

Rather then acknowledging the possibility that he might be willing to work with the SNP and that the SNP aren't the Scottish devils described by the right wing press he simply sang to their tune. He could have grasped this particular thistle while pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories position on coalitions (although in the end they won a majority)

Labour's failure in this election lies firmly at their feet. "Pandafied" in Scotland and well beaten in England. Their only way back is to realise this fact and stop blaming others for their abject failure.

Meanwhile Jim Murphy hangs on to his job like a lone Japanese soldier on a Pacific Island still fighting the Americans long after his side has been annhilated

ernie_lynch - Member
It's all a bit confusing for some of us
That's probably because autocorrect spelt assuming instead of amusing

listening to the same arguments/discussions for 45yrs.

Doesn't that make you want ot try and figure out the truth?

Doesn't that make you want ot try and figure out the truth?

One thing I find interesting about the election is that the Tories clearly had much better tactical intelligence than Labour on what was happening on the ground. The Guardian stated that the Tories in-house polling had them winning over 300 seats, and that prior to that they'd been able to react quickly to info on whether a certain message went down well or not. Clearly Labour had nothing like that, as apparently senior members were shocked at the final result.

Another interesting thing to note is that while the focus has been Scotland Vs England, it appears that Wales were much closer aligned to the latter rather than the former. Maybe even Wales have realised Scottish sport is so poor they wouldn't miss them if they left 😆

Plaid are where SNP were years ago. If they were as credible and robust a party as the SNP they'd have taken a truckload of seats off Labour as well.

But given how little power the WA has Plaid won't be able to use it to gain credibility like SNP did with the SP. I think anyway.

Just in case any of you forgot, the referendum was a win for the no campaign, there is now a Tory majority government and that means the political focus is going to be on the whole of the UK. It is time for Scotland to calm down and accept that things are going to have to get back to normal.

If Scotland became completely devolved then labour would never win a general election again in the UK, if it is still called that.

It is time for Scotland to calm down and accept that things are going to have to get back to normal.

It clearly isn't. Scotland (again) wholly rejected the Tories. If anything the next 5 years are the time to push on a acheive Devo Max.

If Scotland became completely devolved then labour would never win a general election again in the UK

Presumably you think the Tories would in power for eternity. Why do people keep trotting out this nonsense ? Both Tory and SNP supporters do it regularly on here.

#ingoringernie

#ingoringernie

Ignoring ernie doesn't make it any less true.

The UK gets the goverment England votes for. When it voted for a Labour Govermnent in 1997, 2001 and 2005 it got a Labour government. When it voted for Conservative goverments in the eighties it got Conservative governments.

Scottish votes almost never matter, however it didn't stop the right wing press working themselves into a self-righteous lather that this time it might be different. It wasn't though.

The UK gets the goverment England votes for.

Except when it doesn't!

As recently as 2010 England voted for a Conservative majority government, without Scottish Mp's it would have been, instead it was forced into coalition.

Scottish votes almost never matter

This is a daft thing to say. You could say the same thing about ANY of the Labour heartlands when there's a Tory govt, or any of the Tory heartlands when there's a Labour govt. In fact, any area you like.

Rubbish argument. They matter the same as everyone else's.

ninfan - Member

As recently as 2010 England voted for a Conservative majority government, without Scottish Mp's it would have been, instead it was forced into coalition.

It's a fair point, on that occasion you only got 99% of what you voted for.

Rubbish argument. They matter the same as everyone else's.

So why make out that Scotland is somehow special and without it the rest of the UK would have the Tories in power for eternity ?

[img] [/img]

So why make out that Scotland is somehow special and without it the rest of the UK would have the Tories in power for eternity ?

Did I?

This is a daft thing to say. You could say the same thing about ANY of the Labour heartlands when there's a Tory govt, or any of the Tory heartlands when there's a Labour govt. In fact, any area you like.

Any other areas that have traditionally been separate countries, that all vote the same way and have a strong independence movement?

Did I?

ffs

You reckon?

You have clearly never tried to negotiate with anyone from scotland.

This is the juvenile crap I heard all through the indy campaign, Salmond made people want to thing they are in some way "different" or "special", its classic nationalist tactics. We're no different from the majority in the UK and the fact that the SNP are trumpeting this crap about being heard in Westminster is just nonsense, the Lib Dems had one more MP [u]and[/u] a part of the coalition and we know how well that worked out for them.

It boils my urine almost as much as this "mandate of the people" crap, well guess what, you've never had any more than 38% of the people supporting you, so you've not got the mandate of the Scots, no matter what the kool aid drinking fanclub shout over the internet.

Might have to slope off and have a cool beer to calm down 🙂

It boils my urine almost as much as this "mandate of the people" crap, well guess what, you've never had any more than 38% of the people supporting you, so you've not got the mandate of the Scots, no matter what the kool aid drinking fanclub shout over the internet.

50% of the vote this around....

50% of the vote this around....

And yet still only 35.5% of the electorate...

And yet still only 35.5% of the electorate...

This is such a stupid point and I bang my head on the table every time someone presents it. When are vote percentages ever discussed in relational to those who couldn't be arsed to vote? Never, because it's stupid.

50% of the vote this around....

Sorry, 49.97% - majority of Scottish voted against the SNP.

This is such a stupid point and I bang my head on the table every time someone presents it. When are vote percentages ever discussed in relational to those who couldn't be arsed to vote? Never, because it's stupid.

Maybe only when you claim its a "mandate of the people"?

Maybe only when you claim its a "mandate of the people"?

If you're not voting you've given up your option of providing a mandate.

Sorry, 49.97% - majority of Scottish voted against the SNP.

I was rounding up 😉

If you're not voting you've given up your option of providing a mandate.

I see, so if you don't vote, then you don't count? Lets look at the referendum then, only 37.8% gave their mandate, yet still the SNP fanclub claim 45%, they seem slightly confused.

ninfan - Member
50% of the vote this around....
Sorry, 49.97% - majority of Scottish voted against the SNP.

I see, so if you don't vote, then you don't count? Lets look at the referendum then, only 37.8% gave their mandate, yet still the SNP fanclub claim 45%, they seem slightly confused.

Are you arguing that if you don't vote then you somehow do count? What do they count for?

Are you arguing that if you don't vote then you somehow do count? What do they count for?

No, I'm arguing that if somebody doesn't positively confirm they support the SNP views, you cannot assume they do so, and there is 60+ % of the Scottish electorate who have never confirmed that they align to the SNP, yet they seem to be trumpeting about being the voice of Scotland. At least 50% confirm they actively aren't!

hagi - Member
Are you arguing that if you don't vote then you somehow do count? What do they count for?
No, I'm arguing that if somebody doesn't positively confirm they support the SNP views, you cannot assume they do so, and there is 60+ % of the Scottish electorate who have never confirmed that they align to the SNP, yet they seem to be trumpeting about being the voice of Scotland. At least 50% confirm they actively aren't!

Meanwhile, the Tory party control the entire UK with 36.9% of votes cast, or slightly under 25% of the electorate, both of which constitute a majority apparently. Talking down the SNP for "only" getting 49% of votes cast is interesting, when they got a greater percentage of the population as a whole, than the winning party got of votes cast. It's almost like you're directing your ire northwards for some sort of personal reason.

Also, I'm not sure "actively" means what you think it means.

@hagi thanks for joining always good to see others getting wound up, makes me feel better 🙂

Perhaps Wales is different as more of the population are of the view that they are better off as part of the UK, that in my view is more important than a comparison of Plyd Cumru vs SNP

We've done the Scotland votes/gets the Government or not so many times, you could pick other arbitary UK divisions such as North vs South or Urban vs Suburban/Countryside and produce similar "results" it's just meaningless. Whether Scotland gets the government it voted for doesn't impact the money it receives from or the numerous other benefits from being part of the UK.

we don't live under a westminster PR system, so stop talking nonsense..

Which is great for the SNP hence their disproportionate number of seats to votes. What part is nonsense? If I was declaring a "mandate of the people" I'd expect at least 50% of the people to positively confirm they agree with my beliefs.

Talking down the SNP for "only" getting 49% of votes cast is interesting,

Only in Scotland, creating a manifesto for a party with zero chance of having to run the government is a lot easier than creating a manifesto for a party which might actually follow through with their claims.

their disproportionate number of seats to votes.

What part is nonsense?

If I was declaring a "mandate of the people" I'd expect at least 50% of the people to positively confirm they agree with my beliefs.

When was the last time a party got near 50% in a country in a election in any part of the UK?
Before the war is my guess.

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

Which war?

Assuming you mean the last global one, rather than one which was politically convenient for recent leaders, then you're wrong - hang on I'll just check, but it's certainly no earlier than the 50s (I suspect '59 which was the last time Lab/Lib combined didn't manage >50% of the popular vote).

hagi - Member
we don't live under a westminster PR system, so stop talking nonsense..
Which is great for the SNP hence their disproportionate number of seats to votes. What part is nonsense? If I was declaring a "mandate of the people" I'd expect at least 50% of the people to positively confirm they agree with my beliefs.

Otherwise you pass on your mandate to someone else. You can't run a democracy on what you think the half arsed might be thinking.

Its the least disproportionate of all the FPTP winners

I didn't say it wasn't, this isn't a discussion on the pros/cons of FPTP.

The bit where you criticise the party with the greatest percentage of votes cast for being disproportionate and ignore the fact the winners of the election got a much lower % than they did.

Nope, you've missed the point, Its a fantastic result for the SNP (albeit in the end pretty meaningless), the percentage of the votes of the SNP vs the Tories is irrelevant to my point.

I dont think you understand the electoral system and it was as close as damn it
When was the last time a party got near 50% in a country in a election in any part of the UK?
Before the war is my guess.

I agree a fantastic achievement, but has to be framed within context. My point still stands though, its hardly a mandate for the Scots, given that >50% of the electorate are still not in agreement with the SNP.

hagi - Member
given that >50% of the electorate are still not in agreement with the SNP.

Put it this way, if you have 4 people in an electorate and 1 person doesn't vote, instead of having 25% of the vote, each of the 3 remaining now have a voting power of 33.3% each

When was the last time a party got near 50% in a country in a election in any part of the UK?
Before the war is my guess.

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

Any other areas that have traditionally been separate countries

If you can give me a reason why that's important, I'll be impressed 🙂

But if you want to play that game you can look at the voting patterns of Wessex, Mercia, Sussex, Northumbria and the rest of them.

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.

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

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.

[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

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

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.

[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

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

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.

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