Scottish votes haven’t decided the outcome of a Westminster election since at least the War

If you have links, I’d like to see a more detailed analysis of this. I’ve got the feeling that there is more influence from the Scottish votes than is being suggested. I’m thinking along the lines of reduced majorities for in power governments, it’s a lot harder to get anything done with a smaller number of seats.

The PR system in Scotland has 73 constituency MSPs and 56 regional “list” MSPs. The latter are used to provide a cross-party balance reflecting the vote. There are indications that some List MSPs are party “place-men” but, on the whole, the system seems to work fairly well and it has provided us with some interesting Independent/Non-party MSPs – though the number of the latter has been squeezed recently.

Alex Salmond has been given a very easy ride with the media so far, and the opposition, as he wasn’t really considered a threat of wielding any real power. Much as UKIP are viwed presently, south of the border. The SNP manifesto has not been picked over and scrutinised in anywhere like the detail of those of the main parties. Much like the Lib Dems ‘we’ll abolish tuition fees’ manifesto pledge. Clearly unrealistic cobblers, but they were never going to get into power, were they?

That’s all changed now of course. And thats why you’re seeing some political heavyweights* weighing in now. Expect the attack dogs in the right wing press to fall into line, and get suitably nasty, as the referendum approaches.

Personally I think Alex, Shrewd bastard that he is, will like nothing more than being attacked by a bunch of Eton Tories, and the Daily Mail. That should swing a big chunk of votes his way

* Yes I know its laughable to call Dave and Gideon political heavyweights, but everything’s relative, and in the absence of the real thing…

piemonster fill your boots

http://www.ukpolitical.info/

Yes it is true that majorities would have changed, the same could be said for removing 60 or so seats from any part of the UK, but whether there would have been any real impact is a matter for conjecture. N.B. that during the Thatcher years it is likely that the government majority would have increased rather than decreased.

The point however stands that the balance of power has never been decided in Scotland which as it has only 10% or so the overall number of seats isn’t really that surprising.

The PR system in Scotland has 73 constituency MSPs and 56 regional “list” MSPs. The latter are used to provide a cross-party balance reflecting the vote. There are indications that some List MSPs are party “place-men” but, on the whole, the system seems to work fairly well and it has provided us with some interesting Independent/Non-party MSPs – though the number of the latter has been squeezed recently.

Ah, that makes more sense – you have a proper M(S)P that you voted for, and have some (albeit small!) influence over. Sounds considerably better than a full PR countrywide system.

Like him or not (and I don’t like some things he’s done) Alex Salmond is a far better politician and political operator than any of the other lot.

He’s also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

In Westminster, you can get complete power if less than 20% vote for you – in Holyrood, you actually need people to like you and vote for you.

The point however stands that the balance of power has never been decided in Scotland which as it has only 10% or so the overall number of seats isn’t really that surprising

It all just sounds like propaganda to me, you could say the same about any region of the UK with around 8.4% of the population. I’m not sure that, “we didn’t get to decide over everyone else” is really that good a criticism.

It might be a good reason to leave, but it’s not really a fault. And often when I see it I read it as something portrayed as a fault.

Turn it around – can the No camp prove any of that? No

Presumably the burden of proof for any positive or negative effects should really rest with those proposing a change from the status quo?

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films….

I was wondering when Mel would raise his blue face

Everything is a change from the status quo though. We’ve had 34 years of right-wing government in the UK and there seems little prospect of that changing anytime soon. To take one example, that suggests we’ll see further privatisation of the NHS. Can the The No campaign paint that picture of what the UK will look like in 10-15 years time even? It certainly won’t look quite as it does today.

If Scotland is such a millstone round the UK’s neck, why are the Tories desperate to keep us? For the votes?.

Given how idealogically bankrupt the current administration is in westminster it would be a stretch to believe they actually wanted to hold on to the union out of principle rather than the fact that Scotland being in the union benefits the UK economically.

I’m not so sure about that one. You’re forgetting ego and the retention of power. Who would want to be the PM/Party in power when the UK is dissolved? Is there not the possibility of a backlash from the rUK public?

Like him or not (and I don’t like some things he’s done) Alex Salmond is a far better politician and political operator than any of the other lot.

He’s also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

Cameron et al have a mandate, they didn’t invent the system after the vote just to get themselves into power.

Surely in any election or referendum it’s up to all the sides to make their own case.

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films….

And by that rationale, the only ones wanting to keep the status quo would be Tub thumping royalists, who read the daily mail.

A vote for independence isn’t necessarily a vote for SNP. If there’s a Yes vote in 2014, SNP would have just over 1.5 years to implement independence before the next Scottish election (May 2016 I think to avoid a clash with May 2015 general election), would that give enough time to sort it all out? London could easily slow things until the next 2016 election.

The next Scottish parliament may then have a completely different composition with no majority SNP party. All the other parties, sticking with their union ties don’t give any indication of what they would do in the result of a Yes vote; would they not seek to work/negotiate in a different way with the UK government than the SNP?

If the No vote wins, what does the SNP do then? Back to the drawing board? Would they lose credibility as a party? Have any of the other parties got any credibility anyway?

At the moment, it’s pretty much all mis-information from all sides as there’s no certainty as to what would happen and there doesn’t seem much unbiased info available. There seems much frothing at the mouths of those who are Yes or No, with a whole lot in between who probably aren’t that fussed either way, and just want to have a job, pay the mortgage/rent and put food on the table.

Why can’t the country look at things afresh and determine what is the best democratic setup for the UK? How about a similar setup in Wales, England and Northern Ireland as Scotland has now, with a UK parliament looking after defence, foreign policy, big economic stuff, that affects the whole UK. No chance of any change though as everyone protects their own – it’s politics that holds things back.

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films….

I for one will definitely be casting my vote based on a fictionalised account of events which may or may not have happened over 700 years ago.

A fully federal UK was the LibDem policy (I don’t know if they do policies these days). There is a lot to commend it but it would be a partnership of un-equals. Would each home country have an equal say in policy or would England (being much larger) have it’s own way in any case? I’m not sure you’d get any agreement on defence either – let’s start with Trident Replacement…..

Do any parties have coherent policies these days? Or is it more “here’s an idea we’ve come up with, vote for us and we’ll come up with a completely different idea you knew nothing about and may not have voted for”

I’m not sure you’d get any agreement on defence either – let’s start with Trident Replacement…..

In a Federal UK that kind of decision would be centralised (assuming it’s similar to the US). The problem is you end up with twice as many politicians, one thing in favour of Scottish independence is that a large number of the current lot will end up on the dole 🙂

It’s about having our own government which will be directly responsible to us and elected by us without a layer of superior unelected aristocracy and appointees over it.

Scotland has not received fair treatment in the Union from Westminster.

Actions speak louder than words.

??In the last 100 years, the population of England has grown by 55% and that of Scotland by only 11%. Most of our children have to emigrate to get jobs.?? If the cake was being shared equally, you would expect growth in Scotland to match that in England.?

Population

Scotland 1911 – 4,760,000 England & Wales 1911 – 36,000,000
Scotland 1961 – 5,179,000 England & Wales 1961 – 46,100,000
Scotland 2011 – 5,295,000 England & Wales 2011 – 56,000,000

I’m sure a new Scottish govt will at various stages make mistakes, head in the wrong direction, but at least we will be able to do something about it. At the moment our needs are swamped by the more populous rest of the UK.

The English Regions (and Wales) are also stuck in a “union” that also treats them as second-class citizens. The difference is that Scotland still has some trappings of nationhood and the ability to change things.

INDEPENDENCE FOR THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!!

SNP say an independent Scotland would maintain membership of EU
SNP say independent Scotland would keep the pound

The No folk disagree as it’s probably just opposing the SNP view. If the Scottish Tories or Labour were saying that if the Yes vote won they’d seek to keep the pound and maintain membership of the EU, would London say no you wouldn’t? Of course not, it would be a different dynamic to working it out, but none of them can say that as it would mean those parties looking like promoting independence vote, which the national parties are against. Bonkers, there’s very little rational discussion on it and what it all means, it’s either SNP ideas or not.

Re Scotland deciding governments- as has been said it’s a myth. But Scotland getting a government they decisively rejected? That’s no myth. Ask the Scottish Tory MPs. Did I say MPs plural? Oops. Or ask the Labour MPs who make up 2/3ds of Scottish westminster MPs.

Ah well just for completeness let’s look at Wales. 20% Tory, 60% labour.

Why it does appear that rather than the UK getting a labour government because of Scotland, the rest of the UK gets a tory government because of England. How astonishing 😉

bencooper – Member

If we get independence, pretty much the whole reason for the SNP’s existence vanishes – and then we can vote for whoever we want. Scottish Labour, Scottish Greens, Scottish LibDems, even Scottish Tories could get in power.

Ooh I dunno though. I mean, the main reason there’s a realistic Yes campaign is the fact that the SNP have been effective in power, and aren’t defined by independence. I’d vote for them regardless of their position on independence and so it seems do a lot of others (since it seems lots of SNP voters won’t vote yes!).

Tell me they didn’t erect that statue anywhere important..

The English Regions (and Wales) are also stuck in a “union” that also treats them as second-class citizens. The difference is that Scotland still has some trappings of nationhood and the ability to change things.

Yup. 🙁

I seriously think that if Scotland does get independence there should be a campaign to allow the North of England to become part of it (if you’ll have us). I know it will never happen but I would say we have a lot more in common with Scotland than with the south east of England/London.

What region of England would be the first that wanted to join? I’d definitely want Northumberland in.

They’d have to accept the Land Reform Act though.

It’s a bit “chicken and egg” though. I could argue that the SNP has been effective because it can be neither strongly right-wing nor strongly left-wing, containing as it does elements from both. Take away their raison d’etre and I think we could see it splintering.

Finally, the SNP start talking about real issues….

Just another thought, was it not Osbourne who raised this yesterdayin his speech, not the SNP. Their only talk’ was responding to what the westminster government said….

No. He only had something to talk about because the SNP had already outlined their plans. Don’t mistake the amount you hear/read about stuff in the media with what’s actually happening.

Guardian 9th December 2011….

The SNP wants to retain sterling as its currency

He’s also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

Or perhaps he’s got a majority because people suggest that the English are out to get him and use that as a way of promoting him as the alternative to Westminster.

?? If the cake was being shared equally, you would expect growth in Scotland to match that in England.?

Speaking as a displaced northern-England-er who moved to the South East (and have since moved further away) to follow my career, that’s the situation everywhere in the UK, not just Scotland. Is that a bad thing for the communities people leave? I’m sure it is but I’m not so worried about where I’m from that I won’t move for work, life quality etc.

fingers crossed they do get independance, and then kick all the nuclear submarines out of scotland, then instead of having to live in faslane i can stay in plymouth

fingers crossed

sbd16v – Member
fingers crossed they do get independance, and then kick all the nuclear submarines out of scotland, then instead of having to live in faslane i can stay in plymouth
fingers crossed

Minor problem, there’s nowhere in the south like Coulport at the moment and it’d be bloody hard to make one! Take the Dolphin badge off and go on normal shops?

Just like the european union and NATO issues, Salmond really hasn’t thought this through has he?

My god you’re right!
I do hope he reads this thread to see how he really should deal with these issues he’s never thought through before.

How is your French?

L’Ile Longue Submarine Base

Tell me they didn’t erect that statue anywhere important..

Only at the bottom of the actual Wallace Monument. I think it’s gone now – a national embarrassment, which had a protective cage erected to stop the locals smashing the face off with hammers.

Ironic?

It’s a condition of joining the EU now that you commit to a schedule for joining the euro. Scotland could not be independent and keep the pound whilst being a member of the EU. Salmond wants to keep the pound because he needs the Bank of England support, Scotland doesn’t have the financial rescources to stand on it’s own as Salmond knows it.