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.

Its the least disproportionate of all the FPTP winners

What part is nonsense?

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s not how democracy works, you need to get up aff your arse to have a say.

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.

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

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.

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 **** voting power gets transferred to the voting population.

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.

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.

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

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 symbologyI’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.