The Referendum Thread

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Indeed, Scotland never voted Tory but was still governed by Tories because of the English vote. Tory governments , knowing that Scots didn't vote for them , never gave two f**ks about Scotland. Similarly , England were sometimes treated to a Labour government purely because of the Scottish voters . .

Worth remembering , if we do get independence it is "lndependence in Europe " as opposed to the Norwegian model. .

When, in the last 3 decades, were England treated to Labour governments purely because of Scottish voters? When Blair got in his first two election wins were landslides in England, and post-devolution the number of Scottish consituencies was reduced. In the same timeframe Scotland has never once voted for a Tory government and sometimes there has been just 1 Tory MP elected out of a possible 69 Scottish MPs. The notion that things balance out with how Scotland votes and who becomes the UK government is a fallacy. When Labour gets elected it is because England stops voting Tory and switches allegiance.

[Lex]

Paisley voted for Labour, yet we have an SNP parliament in Edinburgh. We never voted for this administration!!!

Should Paisley be independent?

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Paisley voted for Labour, yet we have an SNP parliament in Edinburgh. We never voted for this administration!!!

Should Paisley be independent?

Maybe you should ask if Paisley should be governed by the parties who came 3rd and 4th at the ballot box in Paisley and get just enough votes to get their deposit back? At least with the Scottish Parliament Paisley is fairly represented with its combination of first past the post MSPs and MSPs for Paisley elected via proportional representation.

[Kendo]

Paisley voted for Labour, yet we have an SNP parliament in Edinburgh. We never voted for this administration!!!

Should Paisley be independent?

If the people of Paisley thought that they would be better off independent and voted for it in a referendum then why not.

[Lex]

Maybe you should ask if Paisley should be governed by the parties who came 3rd and 4th at the ballot box in Paisley and get just enough votes to get their deposit back? At least with the Scottish Parliament Paisley is fairly represented with its combination of first past the post MSPs and MSPs for Paisley elected via proportional representation.

Democratic elections will always offer up regional results. Texas voted for Romney but they got Obama, should they be independent? Where do we draw the line?

We had a referendum on PR voting in the UK, and it was voted out. The British people don't want that, and i can understand why. What we have in Scotland as a result of PR is MSP's in parliament who were elected by nobody. Is this more democratic than directly elected MP's?

If the people of Paisley thought that they would be better off independent and voted for it in a referendum then why not.

Thankfully they don't. Just like the people of Scotland don't think they would be better off independent either.

[FTOF]

Thankfully they don't. Just like the majority of people in Scotland who currently don't think they would be better off independent either.

There.

That's a more accurate summation of the current situation.

[salmonbuddie]

 

Just like the people of Scotland don't think they would be better off independent either.

Best wait until the results are in before making claims like that.

[Lex]

There.

That's a more accurate summation of the current situation.

Of course i meant currently. Did i post in the past or future tense? Ha, you've edited my post and you've made it not make much sense. Currently don't think? Ha.

Best wait until the results are in before making claims like that.

Alternatively we could look at all available polling data going back to when records began. It's always been about 60/40 in favour of staying in the union, and it still is today. This is despite the millions spent on campaigning by the 'yes campaign' over the last 18 months. Is it going to change dramatically in the next 10? More than it has ever?

[FTOF]

Of course i meant currently. Did i post in the past or future tense? Ha, you've edited my post and you've made it not make much sense. Currently don't think? Ha.

You shouldn't really draw attention to your poor grasp of the English language.

[salmonbuddie]

 

Alternatively we could look at all available polling data going back to when records began.  It's always been about 60/40 in favour of staying in the union, and it still is today.  This is despite the millions spent on campaigning by the 'yes campaign' over the last 18 months.  Is it going to change dramatically in the next 10?  More than it has ever?

I don't know - I sincerely hope it does - and neither do you. Unlikely, but not impossible is how I'd put it.

[Lex]

You shouldn't really draw attention to your poor grasp of the English language.

Er, okay. I currently don't think you know what you're talking about.

Care to explain that.

Basically there are list MSP's who get into parliament not because they are elected by a constituency - the way MP's are - but because of the amount of 'votes' their party gets.

[Lex]

I don't know - I sincerely hope it does - and neither do you. Unlikely, but not impossible is how I'd put it.

Certainly not impossible, nothing is impossible. St Mirren winning the league is not impossible. We probably have about as much chance of that as a yes vote winning though!

[FTOF]

Er, okay. I currently don't think you know what you're talking about.

Good of you to quit while you're behind.

[salmonbuddie]

 

 

Certainly not impossible, nothing is impossible.  St Mirren winning the league is not impossible.  We probably have about as much chance of that as a yes vote winning though!

Nope, much, much less chance of us winning the league. The majority in every poll I've seen to date is not with BT, it's still there for the winning.

[Lex]

Nope, much, much less chance of us winning the league. The majority in every poll I've seen to date is not with BT, it's still there for the winning.

With BT? Well i know the switch from ESPN wasn't automatic, but if you just call them up they'll...

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Democratic elections will always offer up regional results. Texas voted for Romney but they got Obama, should they be independent? Where do we draw the line?

We had a referendum on PR voting in the UK, and it was voted out. The British people don't want that, and i can understand why. What we have in Scotland as a result of PR is MSP's in parliament who were elected by nobody. Is this more democratic than directly elected MP's?

Thankfully they don't. Just like the people of Scotland don't think they would be better off independent either.

At least with PR there is an attempt for the parliament to reflect how the country and regions have actually voted. Whatever the strengths of first past the post, one of its weaknesses is that the party that wins a majority of seats isn't always the party which gets the biggest share of the vote... in theory they could win 200 of their seats by 1 vote per seat while losing heavily elsewhere... and within the UK you can have a government which has no MPs elected in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but wins heavily in 1 country out of the 4 countries making up the union.

[saintnextlifetime]

When, in the last 3 decades, were England treated to Labour governments purely because of Scottish voters? When Blair got in his first two election wins were landslides in England, and post-devolution the number of Scottish consituencies was reduced. In the same timeframe Scotland has never once voted for a Tory government and sometimes there has been just 1 Tory MP elected out of a possible 69 Scottish MPs. The notion that things balance out with how Scotland votes and who becomes the UK government is a fallacy. When Labour gets elected it is because England stops voting Tory and switches allegiance.

. .and whit. .?

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Certainly not impossible, nothing is impossible. St Mirren winning the league is not impossible. We probably have about as much chance of that as a yes vote winning though!

Remember your track record of St Mirren related predictions Lex

[buddiecat]

And the flip-side, if you want to infer a Yes vote is a vote for Salmond / the SNP is that if you vote No you are potentially voting for a Conservative / UKIP coalition with Cameron and Farage running the country... or Ed Milliband and Labour... or Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems!

yes i know, it's worrying isn't it - i'd much rather we done away with politicians and had a group of people like my wee maw running the country, sadly she is no longer with us and we will never get a bunch of honest, hard working,kind people like her voted in, because politicians have none of these qualities and they get to pick who goes up for election

[buddiecat]

Scotland our time has come, we might never get another shot at it.

We have the chance to be governed by people who will do their best for Scotland

Alternatively we can vote for a party that needs the east of England to vote for them to get power. They also spout we are better together while at the same time not wanting to be a full member of the EU, in fact they want to hold a referendum to leave the EU.

Oooooh the irony.

good luck in finding those people, it's only politicians who can be voted in and they want to do their best for themselves, and voting for a party that needs the east of england to vote for them ? what has that got to do with a scottish referendum vote ?

[Lex]

At least with PR there is an attempt for the parliament to reflect how the country and regions have actually voted. Whatever the strengths of first past the post, one of its weaknesses is that the party that wins a majority of seats isn't always the party which gets the biggest share of the vote... in theory they could win 200 of their seats by 1 vote per seat while losing heavily elsewhere... and within the UK you can have a government which has no MPs elected in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but wins heavily in 1 country out of the 4 countries making up the union.

That's the way it works, and it's the way it works in most democratic countries. One region, one contest, one MP elected, the party with the most MP's win. It's the simplest way and it's the most effective way.

It stops fringe nutjob parties like the BNP and UKIP getting any kind of meaningful representation as their support tends to be thinly spread rather than concentrated. It is also far more likely to deliver a conclusive result, which in turn strengthens the government as coalition means that marginal parties will be disproportionately represented in cabinet and results in cross party relationships and dealing having more power than they should.

Ironically the FPTP delivered a coalition in Westminster and PR delivered a majority in Holyrood in their respective latest elections. What's ze chances!

In the American Presidential elections the vote of the share is also irrelevant, each state is an individual contest and the result is determined by electoral college votes which are determined by the size of the states.

You'll never get an ideal system but i'd say FPTP is the closest we are going to get, and the British people agree as we seen in the recent landslide referendum win it had. It stops list representatives winning seats in parliament representing effectively no one except from their parties. They are appointed not elected for goodness sake. PR takes power away from the people and gives it to the political parties on a disproportionate scale IMO.

Next you'll be saying that folk don't vote for a MP because what party they are.

What?

[Dibbles old paperboy]

That's the way it works, and it's the way it works in most democratic countries. One region, one contest, one MP elected, the party with the most MP's win. It's the simplest way and it's the most effective way.

It stops fringe nutjob parties like the BNP and UKIP getting any kind of meaningful representation as their support tends to be thinly spread rather than concentrated. It is also far more likely to deliver a conclusive result, which in turn strengthens the government as coalition means that marginal parties will be disproportionately represented in cabinet and results in cross party relationships and dealing having more power than they should.

Ironically the FPTP delivered a coalition in Westminster and PR delivered a majority in Holyrood in their respective latest elections. What's ze chances!

In the American Presidential elections the vote of the share is also irrelevant, each state is an individual contest and the result is determined by electoral college votes which are determined by the size of the states.

You'll never get an ideal system but i'd say FPTP is the closest we are going to get, and the British people agree as we seen in the recent landslide referendum win it had. It stops list representatives winning seats in parliament representing effectively no one except from their parties. They are appointed not elected for goodness sake. PR takes power away from the people and gives it to the political parties on a disproportionate scale IMO.

What?

So how many UKIP and BNP MSPs do we have in the Scottish Parliament.

PR lets the wee parties who get about 10-15% of the votes everywhere but would hardly win any 1st past the post contents be represented - eg the Conservatives and Lib Dems

One of the big issues with 1st past the post is the feeling that your vote doesn't count unless you are in a marginal constituency as opposed to a safe seat. With PR you might still elect a list MSP / party even if they don't win outright if enough other people think they are worth voting for.

[Bud Bundy]

How many people vote for the party and not the person in a general election.

As every MP has the same party manifesto.

I wanted To Be a Politician, And write a Book - But The Voters widnae Let Me ?

[Stuart Dickson]

So how many UKIP and BNP MSPs do we have in the Scottish Parliament.

PR lets the wee parties who get about 10-15% of the votes everywhere but would hardly win any 1st past the post contents be represented - eg the Conservatives and Lib Dems

One of the big issues with 1st past the post is the feeling that your vote doesn't count unless you are in a marginal constituency as opposed to a safe seat. With PR you might still elect a list MSP / party even if they don't win outright if enough other people think they are worth voting for.

Do you think so? What about the case of John Finnie and Jean Urquhart? SNP voters in the Highlands and Islands may well have had the same idea about our version of democracy as you do. Both won their seats, and their MSP salaries and expense accounts courtesy of the list system. Yet when the SNP announced it's intention to campaign for Independence on the basis that Scotland would remain in NATO the two of them promptly resigned their whip. Now you would think that since they no longer were representing the SNP - having been elected to the post through the list system - that this would mean some sort of by-election, yet that hasn't happened. Instead these two politicians who have no constituents retain their seats as Independents.

Have a wee read on Google at some of the articles that were in the media at the time and you'll find some great quotes from various top ranking SNP MSP's who were unabashed in telling the pair that they were to remember that as list MSP's they weren't entitled to their own opinion and that they had to toe the party line. Banana Republic democracy in action.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

yes i know, it's worrying isn't it - i'd much rather we done away with politicians and had a group of people like my wee maw running the country, sadly she is no longer with us and we will never get a bunch of honest, hard working,kind people like her voted in, because politicians have none of these qualities and they get to pick who goes up for election

No they don't.

Anyone can stand for election as an independent.