As I have stated on here many times, I am no politician and don't have a great interest in it.
However we have just had our Scottish Government elections and so far it is looking like a landslide vote for the SNP. This seems to have taken many of the commentators, and indeed the SNP themselves, by surprise.
As a non-activist, I reckon I am probably in the majority in Scotland ie. peole who don't care much but will be swayed by the little that they do pick up.
So we have had an SNP government for the last few years. Don't know if they have done good or bad but , unlike the British Parliament, I did not hear opposition making song and dance about all the bad decisions they had taken like Tories did with Labour management of the economy. Anytime I saw Alex Samond on the news he seemed confident and spoke with authority.
SNP also had the backing of the Scottish Sun whose readership I believe has now exceeded the traditional labour Daily Record.
Labour leader Iain Gray won his seat by 151 votes and my lasting memory of seeing him on the news, was when he was campaigning in Glasgow and a group challenged him and he and his sidekicks ran, literally ran, into a Subway sandwich shop to try and get away from them. In full view of the cameras that Labour had obviously invited along to witness his canvassing and meeting the people! A huge PR disaster.
Conservatives do not do well in Scotland. Never have done and they still suffer from memories of Maggie Thatcher. So who better to put forward than Annabel Goldie, a Thatcher clone if ever they could find one. Just in case they had a chance of gaining a vote, they put daughter of Maggie out. And anytime you saw her on the news canvassing, there were no groups of followers with her, just her and a sidekick.
Liberals, well their leader is Tavish Scott whose seat is in the Shetlands. Was this a huge error of judgement, having someone based so far from the Central Belt? He was on TV mountain biking down a hill side with his suit trousers and shirt on , wearing a helmet. really not sure of what the message being conveyed there was! I do think they suffered from their coalition partnership with the Tories though. Not a good link to have in Scotland!
I know its maybe easy, and to a certain extent naughty of me saying this, but I don't know if SNP have got in on political reasons or through default due to people like me. This needs to be a huge wake up call for the political parties in Scotland, they need to embrace people like me, they need to use methods of conveying messages and getting their points across to people who don't do politics. You don't do that on a political show, you don't do that by mountain biking and you certainly don't do it by trying to hide in a Subway shop (though he would have went up in my estimation if he had ordered a foot long meatball marinara!)
Anyway thats my ramblings over, would be interesting to hear thoughts from any other Scottish based C4PPERS?
|
Ms Goldie came third in her constituency contest under FPTP behind the SNP winner and Labour.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/36130.stm
She'll still have a seat though through the list system.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 6 May 11 at 10:19
|
...She'll still have a seat though through the list system....
Candidate comes third and is still elected.
No wonder the public is about to give AV the heave-ho.
|
|
I guess Alex Salmond will be pushed into a referendum on secession now, whether he wants one or not.
|
Iffy, having delighted in telling us all you don't (want to) understand AV, why are you commenting on it? And how has the (now dead) AV debate got anything to do with someone being returned to the Scottish Parliament via a party list?
But back on topic though, and away from Iffy's strange obsession with something he is so uninterested in that doesn't want to understand it, but still feel qualified to discuss.
I think Mike Hannon has a good point here - Salmond and the SNP may actually be disappointed if they achieve a majority government now, at a time when support for independence is relatively low, forcing them into a referendum which they will lose. Which will kind of negate the point of their existence.
Be carefeul what you wish for, eh??
|
Alanovic,
Thank you for the posting advice - it will be ignored, of course.
I am neither obsessed nor uninterested in the AV question.
My firm belief is first past the post is so superior to AV as to make the question a stupid one.
Anyway, back to Scottish politics, on which my view is, well, er, um....
I know, abolish that poxy assembly and spend the money on something useful.
|
>> My firm belief is first past the post is so superior to AV as to
>> make the question a stupid one.
You don't understand AV, so you have no basis on which to state that.
>> I know, abolish that poxy assembly and spend the money on something useful.
You advocate the removal of Westminster from British governance? Interesting position.
|
...You advocate the removal of Westminster from British governance?...
You've lost me there.
How many elected representatives does a citizen need?
I have:
A parish councillor
A local councillor
A member of parliament - Westminster
A Euro MP (unfortunately)
Were I in Scotland or Wales, I would add another layer of expense, sorry, representation to that list - an assembly or parliament member, or whatever they call it.
Here in the North East, we were offered a regional assembly a few years ago.
Those in favour of that were a bunch of patronising gravy trainers.
Happily, that went the same way as I expect AV to go later today.
We simply do not need all these elected representatives, who 99.99 per cent of us never contact anyway.
The assemblies and Euro parliament are a waste of money, which wouldn't matter if it were only a couple of million a year, but it's not, it's tens of millions.
Abolish the lot of it and we would be much better off in many respects, not just financially.
|
|
Its all very interesting in Scotland and nice to see a party other than the 'big three' making progress, I wish the SNP well, presumably the people who vote for them know they want independance which may seem more attractive with the harsh looking stuff going on south of the border - the notion of getting further away from Westminster may have psychological traction with people.
|
Indeed, the sooner we stop diverting money from the rest of the UK into Scotland the better.
The simple truth is that Scotland, on its own, is not economically viable.
|
There's the rub, Zero.
I think people may have voted SNP this time as a stand against the three other lousy options, safe in the knowledge that, should there be a referendum on independence, it will be defeated.
|
Zed, I think you'll find no part of the UK is economically viable.
We're borrowing £500m per day just to stand still right now.
If Scotland could break from the UK but somehow leave Glasgow behind we'd do just fine.
Until then we'll happily remain part of a United Kingdom.
|
>> If Scotland could break from the UK but somehow leave Glasgow behind we'd do just
>> fine.
>>
>> Until then we'll happily remain part of a United Kingdom.
In the recent banking crisis, had Scotland been independent, they would now be a failed state.
The RBoS and BoS would have, literately, made the country completely bankrupt. We are talking Zimbabwe levels here.
|
>> We are talking
>> Zimbabwe levels here.
>>
Well. Perhaps Iceland levels.
|
|
Iceland is on the road, (by its refusal to pay its debts) to Harare.
|
|
IF Scotland does go independent, local taxation would have to increase to levels the populous would not stand.
|
I don't particularly want independence for Scotland. Happy enough with the devolved assembly here while still benefitting from a shared NHS, Armed Forces etc. etc. Happy enough with Mr Salmond running the show, always strikes me as a fairly strong politician and rarely looses the talking battles on the box.
Financially in the short term Scotland would probably be ok assuming the continental shelf act stood as the basis for dividing maritime boundaries, but that would leave England with a sizeable hole in it's income.
So we'd be faced with a potential dust up between neighbours, who knows how that would end up. There's still some support for the IRA simmering under the surface in some areas here. Last thing both countries need is giving the warrior types an excuse to fight.
I'd rather we leave as is.
|
"The simple truth is that Scotland, on its own, is not economically viable."
And nor is most of England north of The Wash come to that
|
"The simple truth is that Scotland, on its own, is not economically viable."
They could sell more shortbread biscuits.
|
>>Iffy, having delighted in telling us all you don't (want to) understand AV, why are you commenting on it?
Candidate comes first and is elected. Makes sense.
Candidate comes third and is elected. Makes no sense.
That's why AV will be kicked out. I think Iffy is teasing you when he says he doesn't understand, he does - see above!
|
...I think Iffy is teasing you when he says he doesn't understand, he does - see above!...
Sort of.
It's a bit like some wise words I once heard about gambling.
"I only know enough about backing horses to know not to do it."
|
The flip-side of the anti-AV argument is the situation where 65% of the population don't vote for a group that manages to get 70% of the seats.
Equally unfair, and in countries where democracy isn't quite so respected, a recipe for dictatorships.
No system is perfect, and to pretend one is head and shoulders over the other is either disingenuous or just wrong.
|
>> No system is perfect, and to pretend one is head and shoulders over the other
>> is either disingenuous or just wrong.
>>
An excellent point.
One upshot of the Scottish election which hasn't been mentioned yet - the election result is based on a form of PR I believe, and it looks like it may well have produsced a majority government. Unlike FPTP in the last Westminster election. Which kind of contradicts the stand so dear to supporters of FPTP that PR leads to coalition, and FPTP does not. And they always overlook tha fact that coalition does not equal unstable or bad government, and majority rule does not necessarily equal stable or good government.
And another thing. Trying to steer the thread back on topic again (a bit). When the new National Assemblies were set up, was FPTP chosen as the best system? No. So why do we persist with an inferior system for our most important chamber, when Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron all have been given better systems? Is there any clamour in the Celtic lands for reform and an implementation of FPTP? No. Why? Obvious.
|
>> ...She'll still have a seat though through the list system....
>>
>> Candidate comes third and is still elected.
>>
>> No wonder the public is about to give AV the heave-ho.
It's nothing to do with AV.
Elections to the Scottish Parliament use a system of full proportional representation via an additional member system. After the consituency elections under FPTP are complete additional members are added drawn from party lists. The 'top up' members ensure the memebership of the house as a whole is proportional to the votes cast overall. Ms Goldie is not elected but appointed by that route.
|
|
AV is a stepping stone to full PR
|
>> Candidate comes third and is still elected.
>>
>> No wonder the public is about to give AV the heave-ho.
Brompton>>It's nothing to do with AV.
Of course it's nothing to do with AV, merely shows how bonkers the system is. Methinks you are being a little disingenuous here. Under AV candiate potentially comes third and is still elected. Bonkers. Under PR said candidate comes third and is still elected. Bonkers. No wonder the public is about to give AV the heave-ho.
I don't think anybody is pretending that FPTP is "fair" if "fair" means to you that getting 7% of the vote means getting 7% of the seats. HOWEVER, FPTP generally gives the right result and a balanced parliament. Remember HM's loyal opposition would have lost far more seats under AV in 2010.
Alanovic, of course you are right that coalition government is not, of itself, necessarily a bad thing. But do you agree that there is no point in parties bothering with manifestos if the end result is a government with policies that NOBODY for them voted for. I might remind you that the only one of the three parties with an AV policy was Labour. And I'd like to remind you that neither of the parties in Government wanted an AV referendum. How is that logical?
|
>> How is that logical?
>>
You make good points. But it is surely undenible that a PR system would reflect the wishes of the people on a national scale more fairly.
I think people worry too much about the result which we might get, rather than making sure that the system we use treats everyone's vote equably as a principled starting point. FPTP doesn't, and was created in the times of, let's say, a less than universal franchise, to support a not exactly open and accessible Establishment. Change is long, long overdue for these reasons.
But please - this isn't the AV/PR thread.
Back on topic yet again, and it could be that the voting system change is academic in the light of the unexpected and dramatic Scottish Parliament result. An Independent Scotland would likely deliver a Conservative government in England in perpetuity, whatever system is used.
|
The SNP have now officially won with a majority. 21 seats still to declare. So it is a stunning victory.
Interesting times. I wonder when the referendum will be?
It could be argued that, as the Scots would be deciding on whther or not to break up the UK, any referendum should be extended to the entire UK.
The UK could well be dead within a year. Quite a thought.
|
As soon as the Scots find out the true financial cost of independence to them (see my thread re taxation) they will probably decline. Alex may regret calling the referendum, as they will have to change the founding basis of the party, tho it has legs a regional party.
Interesting about the rest of the UK voting, on Scottish independence, there is a case for that, tho it may be undesirable because if the English vote, we may well vote to cast them adrift! Which is bad for them and bad for us.
|
|
I wonder if independent Scotland would be asked to choose between a constitutional Monarchy and a Republic?
|
I think my dad is maybe a good example of an SNP voter.
For years Labour ruled the roost in Scotland but his viewpoint was to vote SNP just to keep labour on their toes and, maybe also, make the British Govt know that there were different viewpoints in Scotland.
Over the years SNP have got stronger, possibly through protest votes while Labour got weaker. As we all know , in opposition it is easy to bleat about what you would do instead; its a different story when you are subsequently in power.
Well we have had SNP in power for a while now and as I touched on in the original post, and Skoda has also mentioned, they have came over as being not too bad actually. Certainly haven't done anything horrifically wrong that I can think of and Salmond debates well.
However the next stage, which Zero has mentioned is the full independent vote. Interestingly, this was always the ultimate SNP target however in this election they promised to have the vote in the lifetime of this new Parliament, as opposed to promising to deliver it straight away.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was delayed, or diluted somehow as when push comes to shove, all these protest votes may suddenly sit up and take interest and may not be prepared to push for the whole independance.
|
>> I wouldn't be surprised if this was delayed, or diluted somehow as when push comes
>> to shove, all these protest votes may suddenly sit up and take interest and may
>> not be prepared to push for the whole independance.
>>
I wish they would either go independent, or stop voting on English matters in the London Parliament. That would solve problem posed by the "Lothian question".
In other words, stop keeping their cake while eating the English one.
|
Should the Scots decide that they want a referendum on independence, they first have to get it approved by Westminster.
I look forward to hearing MPs for Scottish constituencies telling English MPs to keep their noses out of matters which only affect Scotland. Short memories?
|
Duncan, I think you'll find the international backing for nations looking to become "independent" would supercede Westminster (not least the european courts of justice).
I think it is not likely that a majority of Scots would vote for independence so it's not a big issue at present.
|
The UK was arguably brought into existence by a massive financial disaster north of the border... might it break up following another (although RBoS and HBoS can hardly be described as 'Scottish' any more)?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
|
>> The UK was arguably brought into existence by a massive financial disaster north of the
>> border... might it break up following another (although RBoS and HBoS can hardly be described
>> as 'Scottish' any more)?
No they are not, they can have them back as long as they carry the debt shouldered to rescue them
|
Today the Scottish Tory leader resigned meaning that since last Thursday's election, all 3 opposition party leaders have resigned.
All 3 campaigns have been called disasters by their own people and every party away to have a rethink about policies.
Alex Salmond must be phishing himself laughing at them all!!
|
He should be very careful what he wishes for, or he may get it.
"Scottish independence" is much more useful to the SNP as a bait dangling in the air than as a reality.
|
There would probably have to be two referendums. The first to give the SNP the mandate to negotiate independence, and a second for the Scots people to agree to the terms and structure.
It is, as a minimum a two term parliament process, and the SNP need to be in majority power for both terms.
ABout 6 years minimum I would say, if it happened.
|
The Scots vote SNP as the "sensible" alternative to Labour given their inherent Socialist tendencies. Not because they want to separate from us.
|
|
SO if the scots vote no, and do it resoundingly, it leaves the SNP as a mere regional party, and will have to rethink its founding roots.
|
|
All of which was described earlier in the thread.
|
Shouldn't we all vote in a referendum that proposes breaking up the union?
|
>>
>> Shouldn't we all vote in a referendum that proposes breaking up the union?
As was described earlier in the thread.
|
>> >>
>> >> Shouldn't we all vote in a referendum that proposes breaking up the union?
>>
>> As was described earlier in the thread.
You were not listening properly.
Have you heard of the three times rule? Tell them three times for maximum effect.
Another one to go yet.
|
>> SO if the scots vote no, and do it resoundingly, it leaves the SNP as
>> a mere regional party, and will have to rethink its founding roots.
Party wants something, people elect it, but deny it the power to do what it wants. So what. Lib Dems are now exactly the same.
|
>> Party wants something, people elect it, but deny it the power to do what it wants. So what. Lib Dems are now exactly the same. >>
Except that the people did not directly elect them.
What makes the coalition democratic is that the majority voted for either the Conservatives or Lib Dems and they have got both.
|
>>
the majority voted for either the Conservatives or
>> Lib Dems and they have got both.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
That's an interesting new concept. So a truely democratic voting system might be called the "Additional Vote" system. You place your first vote with your preferred party, but also indicate the other parties you would be prepared to have in power as well.
You would have as many votes as there were permutations of power-sharing - thus A, A+B, A+C, B+C but not with D, etc.
The winner would be the simplest combination attracting the greatest number of votes.
Of course that might force politicians with violently opposed views to share office - but what's new? :)
|
Some political ramblings.. - Bromptonaut
