MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Looks like a Tory UK government - but what legitimacy do they have in Scotland? 1 seat of 59. 4th in the popular vote with under 17% and Labour increased their vote to 42%.
What price for the SNP to support Cameron? How far down the independence road will Cameron go?
Is this the final end of the union?
The Tories have all the legitimacy they need as this was an election for a UK government.
but what legitimacy do they have in Scotland
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e91.stm ]More than they have in Birmingham[/url]
but what legitimacy do they have in Scotland?
bit of a daft statement, for the very reasons above
[i]Looks like a Tory [b]UK government[/b] - but what legitimacy do they have in Scotland?[/i]
See, you've answered your own question...
How far down the independence road will Cameron go?
I'll hazard a guess at "not very far at all", and I'm not convinced he'll need to.
Will this be the final, deciding moment at which the interminable low muttering of Scottish discontent actually turns into decisive action for political independence? I'm not going to hold my breath. Go on, surprise us... 🙂
And it isn't really a "reversal" of the West Lothian Question either. It's part of the nationwide constitutional outrage and failure of democracy that occurs because some constituencies have sent MPs to Westminster who do not belong to the party which forms the government. But you know what the WLQ is, you're just being hysterical. 🙂
[i]Looks like a Tory UK government - but what legitimacy do they have in Scotland?[/i]
The same amount of legitimacy that they have in my house.
Surely if Callmedave gets the Cleggies onside then the role of any nationalist parties becomes pretty much irrelevant and there won't need to be any concessions made.......
hilldodger - Member
Surely if Callmedave gets the Cleggies onside then the role of any nationalist parties becomes pretty much irrelevant and there won't need to be any concessions made.......
He could even appoint a LibDem as Scottish Secretary and the government would have 12 MPs in Scotland, not just 1.
Hysterical - hardly.
I find it interesting that labour increased its vote in Scotland and that once again the tories failed to make any impact at all. Very different tot the rest of the UK and I think that the tories actually have a majority of English seats do they not?
While its not really a reversal of the west Lothian question it has some parallels.
It certainly looks unsustainable as a constitutional settlement to me. I think this issue needs to be revisited as a part of a greater constitutional reform.
I think overall my preferred settlement would be a federal one. Full fiscal independence and No UK commons - just 3 parliaments for the constituent parts and a senate that is UK wide to perform a "lords" type role
Full fiscal independence
Can we include a transfer of all the debts directly attributable to the failings of the Scottish banks as part of that settlement?
Of far more importance is the West Lothian question original version, given that the Conservatives could pass all the regulation they want which only affects England (eg NHS stuff) if only English MPs were allowed to vote on it. It will only be Scottish and Welsh MPs of various flavours voting against who will prevent this, despite such legislation having no relevance to their constituents.
aracer - Member
> Full fiscal independenceCan we include a transfer of all the debts directly attributable to the failings of the Scottish banks as part of that settlement?
Certainly - as long we also include all the profits made in the last, say, 20 years up to last year and all the shares which the UK government is now holding in said Banks.
Of far more importance is the West Lothian question original version, given that the Conservatives could pass all the regulation they want which only affects England (eg NHS stuff) if only English MPs were allowed to vote on it. It will only be Scottish and Welsh MPs of various flavours voting against who will prevent this, despite such legislation having no relevance to their constituents.
You do know that SNP MPs do not vote on English-only issues?
as long we also include all the profits made in the last, say, 20 years up to last year
I think you'll find those went to shareholders, unlike the debt.
You do know that SNP MPs do not vote on English-only issues?
That's kind of irrelevant given how small a proportion of Scottish MPs they are - they don't hold the balance of power.
What happened To Shrek & his SNP parties claim that they'd take 20 seats?
As for fairness and relevance:
SNP 1.7% of vote = 6 MPs
BNP 1.9% of vote = 0 MPs
UKIP 3.1% of vote = 0 MPs
doesn't that mean that if we did have a proportionally representative system then both BNP and UKIP would warrant more seats than SNP ?
[i]It certainly looks unsustainable as a constitutional settlement to me.[/i]
Much the same things were said in '92 when Major had what? 7 or 8 MPs in Scotland. I'm hardly hearing the desperate clamouring for reform...
uplink - MemberWhat happened To Shrek & his SNP parties claim that they'd take 20 seats?
3rd party squeeze I think.
The fact that the tories have a majority of English MPs makes for interesting times as well.
Aracer - I think you will find that the Scottish parts of the banks did not make the losses
hilldodger - Member
As for fairness and relevance:SNP 1.7% of vote = 6 MPs
BNP 1.9% of vote = 0 MPs
UKIP 3.1% of vote = 0 MPsdoesn't that mean that if we did have a proportionally representative system then both BNP and UKIP would warrant more seats than SNP ?
Correct. But then who'd believe that over 500,000 people would vote for BNP?
If you want your own say then your countrymen should really be voting more for the SNP but they didn't.
TandemJeremy - MemberAracer - I think you will find that the Scottish parts of the banks did not make the losses
Jeremy - stop now. There is no "Scottish part of the Bank" as they were both UK-based institutions.
Knew you would like that one 🙂 Makes about as much sense as
aracer - Member
Can we include a transfer of all the debts directly attributable to the failings of the Scottish banks as part of that settlement?
3rd party squeeze I think.
I don't think so
Not bothered counting but they look to have finished 2nd in the majority of seats
But then who'd believe that over 500,000 people would vote for BNP?
That [i]is[/i] something to get hysterical about....
aracer - Member
as long we also include all the profits made in the last, say, 20 years up to last yearI think you'll find those went to shareholders, unlike the debt.
I think you'll find you're wrong.
uplink - Member
3rd party squeeze I think.
I don't think so
Not bothered counting but they look to have finished 2nd in the majority of seats
SNP vote is actually up by about the same as the Labour vote in Scotland.
they were both UK-based institutions.
Like North Sea oil?
"I think you'll find those went to shareholders, unlike the debt."I think you'll find you're wrong.
Really - what did they do with the profits then? Should we call in the FSA because they weren't doing what private companies are supposed to with the money they make?
Is this the final end of the union?
Hopefully, would be nice.
No point getting into a debate though as I'm not fully informed, but don't let that stop you lot.
"aracer - Member
as long we also include all the profits made in the last, say, 20 years up to last year
I think you'll find those went to shareholders, unlike the debt."
Even leaving aside income tax, 5 years of UK banking industry taxation more than paid for the bailout.
I'm always quite amused at hearing HBOS described as a "scottish bank". I know yorkshire wishes it was in scotland but it's not really.