Thatcher

[jaggybunnet]

Were that the case the Scottish Parliament would be rammed full of socialist MSPs. The total combined number of SSP and Solidarity MSPs = 0. C'mon Jaggy! ;-)

 

as GI said over a mil voted for labour

[Mr Bunny]

as GI said over a mil voted for labour

 

So, they didn't vote for socialist parties then, did they.

[jaggybunnet]

So, they didn't vote for socialist parties then, did they.

 

yes they did IIRC even Blackpool jag still voted for them because that's what they have always done.

[Blackpool Jags]

 

 

yes they did IIRC even Blackpool jag still voted for them because that's what they have always done.

 

Come on, JB, that's pretty rank, even from an old dyed-in-the-wool Maggie worshipper like you. Dear oh dear.

[jaggybunnet]

Come on, JB, that's pretty rank, even from an old dyed-in-the-wool Maggie worshipper like you. Dear oh dear.

 

so you didn't say that?

[crazy davie]

no i am arguing that they did well because there are so many bitter lefties in Scotland who cant see past the first page of there copy of socialist worker never mind the bigger picture

So if you vote Labour you must be doing so because you are an imbecile who can't think straight (and doesn't even try), whereas, if you vote Conservative, you must be a very intelligent fellow indeed, having carefully weighed up all the pros and cons and been persuaded to that view by your rigourous analysis... It all makes sense now..!!!

[jaggybunnet]

So if you vote Labour you must be doing so because you are an imbecile who can't think straight (and doesn't even try), whereas, if you vote Conservative, you must be a very intelligent fellow indeed, having carefully weighed up all the pros and cons and been persuaded to that view by your rigourous analysis... It all makes sense now..!!!

 

thanks CD glad you have got it at last

Edited January 9, 2014 by jaggybunnet

[Guy Incognito]

Yeah Labour got close to a million but the debate is about voting patterns of those of a non-left persuasion.

 

They acutally got over a million, but I thought the 'debate' was actually about voting patterns in general.

 

Let's look at it another way. In 2010, around 1.5 million voters in Scotland voted for what are, esseentially, centre-left parties. We got a centre-right government, however, because most voters in England voted for a centre-right government. Fair enough, if that is the will of the English people; but quite clearly it is not the will of the Scots.

 

It is also quite a common phenomenon to 'swap parties'. Voting in an election is not the same as supporting a football team. This is a good thing, in my view, as it shows that people aren't prepared to blindly follow parties because they are 'their team'.

 

 

[The Mighty Quinn]

So if you vote Labour you must be doing so because you are an imbecile who can't think straight (and doesn't even try), whereas, if you vote Conservative, you must be a very intelligent fellow indeed, having carefully weighed up all the pros and cons and been persuaded to that view by your rigourous analysis... It all makes sense now..!!!

exactly mate. if u vote labour you must hate this country, because both times we've went into recession its on the back of their govt, spending outwith their means. They destroy the economy. the tories get left with the job of tidying it up, and the only way is to cut after labour's profligate spending. and they get made out to be the bad guys. OPEN YOUR EYES LABOUR SUPPORTERS. A vote for labour is a vote for mass unemployment and misery. Edited January 9, 2014 by The Mighty Quinn

[yoda-jag]

It is also quite a common phenomenon to 'swap parties'. Voting in an election is not the same as supporting a football team. This is a good thing, in my view, as it shows that people aren't prepared to blindly follow parties because they are 'their team'.

 

sadly, some do blindly follow and vote for the tories, as others do with labour, not just every election out of blind loyalty, but in some families, its generation after generation. only need to look at history and certain people we all know.

it is a declining trait in more recent years, but it is still prevalent (both in scotland, and england)

[The Mighty Quinn]

sadly, some do blindly follow and vote for the tories, as others do with labour, not just every election out of blind loyalty, but in some families, its generation after generation. only need to look at history and certain people we all know.

it is a declining trait in more recent years, but it is still prevalent (both in scotland, and england)

totally agree yoda, the whole cretinous 'my da supported labour so i'll support labour' thing really gets me down. scotland's so blinkered to how bad these people are. i hope people will start to vote ukip Edited January 9, 2014 by The Mighty Quinn

[i@n]

My dad always voted tory. I didn't, I voted Labour and then changed to SNP. He then copied me and voted SNP. "my son voted SNP so I'll vote SNP" really cheered me up. RIP Dad

[kni]

They acutally got over a million, but I thought the 'debate' was actually about voting patterns in general.

 

Let's look at it another way. In 2010, around 1.5 million voters in Scotland voted for what are, esseentially, centre-left parties. We got a centre-right government, however, because most voters in England voted for a centre-right government. Fair enough, if that is the will of the English people; but quite clearly it is not the will of the Scots.

 

It is also quite a common phenomenon to 'swap parties'. Voting in an election is not the same as supporting a football team. This is a good thing, in my view, as it shows that people aren't prepared to blindly follow parties because they are 'their team'.

 

In February 1974, England, having voted Tory, had a Labour government imposed on it by the "will of the Scots". Nationally (i.e. in England, Scotland and Wales) Labour won 301 seats to the Conservatives' 297. In Scotland, Labour won 40 seats and the Conservatives won 21.

 

So the will of Scots let to Harold Wilson "imposing" a minority government on the rest of the United Kingdom. I accept that as a necessary feature of British democracy but you apparently do not. Why?

Edited January 10, 2014 by kni

[Guy Incognito]

Britain voted for, and got, the Conservative-led government that it voted for in 2010. Under proportional representation, Scotland would have a lot more SNP, Conservative and Lib Dem MPs.

 

Scotland voted for, and got, the SNP government in Holyrood that it voted for in 2011. Even Donald Dewar's PR system could not stop that!

 

'Britain' did indeed vote for a Conservative-led government in 2010, largely on account of the fact that around 85% of 'Britain' is actually England (in terms of population), which, as we know, favoured the Conservatives.

 

The Scottish electorate voted SNP by a very clear margin in 2011 but unfortunately Holyrood's powers are limited. Issues such as the economy, pensions, state benefits, foreign policy and immigration are reserved to Westminster and are currently being decided by an administration we did not vote for.

 

 

 

In February 1974, England, having voted Tory, had a Labour government imposed on it by the "will of the Scots". Nationally (i.e. in England, Scotland and Wales) Labour won 301 seats to the Conservatives' 297. In Scotland, Labour won 40 seats and the Conservatives won 21.

 

So the will of Scots let to Harold Wilson "imposing" a minority government on the rest of the United Kingdom. I accept that as a necessary feature of British democracy but you apparently do not. Why?

 

Aye, and that was one of the precious few occasions since the end of WW2 that Scottish votes have made any discernible difference to the outcome of a UK general election. Saying that, that particular government only lasted for eight months. Remove the Scottish votes and it would have been a minority Tory government instead, which could well have suffered the same fate. It is unlikely to be repeated, given that population disparities have widened further and Scotland now has fewer MPs now than it did then, leaving Scotland the proverbial one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest.

 

Why do I not think it is necessary feature of British democracy? Because I don't think the UK as a political entity is necessary, certainly not any longer. I see England and Scotland as distinct countries, neither better nor worse than one another, just different. It possibly made some sense 300 years ago but I think it has had its day. Morally, I don't think it is fair that England should have centre-left governments foisted upon it if that isn't what its citizens voted for, especially not now that Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments. It is to the credit of both Plaid Cymru and the SNP that its MPs abstain from voting on matters that only affect England (unlike their unionist counterparts).

 

I think the nub of the matter is this. If you see 'Britain' as an identifiable nation in itself then the fact that one segment tends to lean one way politically than the other is just one of those things you have to accept in a democracy. But if you do then you have to ask why segments of that nation even have their own parliaments in the first place and why, in Scotland's case, it has its own education and legal system.

[kni]

"Morally, I don't think it is fair that England should have centre-left governments foisted upon it if that isn't what its citizens voted for, especially not now that Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments. It is to the credit of both Plaid Cymru and the SNP that its MPs abstain from voting on matters that only affect England (unlike their unionist counterparts)."

 

Fair points. Scottish Labour and Lib Dem MPs are whipped to vote in the Commons on English and Welsh matters. England should have its own Parliament to vote on English matters.

 

An independent Scotland will have to sign up to a fiscal treaty with Westminster or join the Euro. The Bank of England will not act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks without a fiscal treaty. Such a treaty would need to have agreements on taxation and spending plus strict regulations on banks' lending and capital reserves.

 

Given Barroso statements, the more likely outcome is that an independent Scotland will have to apply to join the EU, adopt the Euro and pay annual payments to the EU budgets. Even if the country votes Yes, the economy will still be controlled by the Bank of England in London or the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. The Irish chose Frankfurt and an independent Scotland will have take on a proportion on the UK's £7 billion loan to Dublin.

 

My preference is for a truly independent Scotland outside the EU but in EFTA with its own currency like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. However, that's not what we're being asked to vote for. Salmond is offering only separation but with an English currency and more rule from Brussels. That's subservience, not real independence.

[Jaggernaut]

"Morally, I don't think it is fair that England should have centre-left governments foisted upon it if that isn't what its citizens voted for, especially not now that Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments. It is to the credit of both Plaid Cymru and the SNP that its MPs abstain from voting on matters that only affect England (unlike their unionist counterparts)."

 

Fair points. Scottish Labour and Lib Dem MPs are whipped to vote in the Commons on English and Welsh matters. England should have its own Parliament to vote on English matters.

 

An independent Scotland will have to sign up to a fiscal treaty with Westminster or join the Euro. The Bank of England will not act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks without a fiscal treaty. Such a treaty would need to have agreements on taxation and spending plus strict regulations on banks' lending and capital reserves.

 

Given Barroso statements, the more likely outcome is that an independent Scotland will have to apply to join the EU, adopt the Euro and pay annual payments to the EU budgets. Even if the country votes Yes, the economy will still be controlled by the Bank of England in London or the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. The Irish chose Frankfurt and an independent Scotland will have take on a proportion on the UK's £7 billion loan to Dublin.

 

My preference is for a truly independent Scotland outside the EU but in EFTA with its own currency like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. However, that's not what we're being asked to vote for. Salmond is offering only separation but with an English currency and more rule from Brussels. That's subservience, not real independence.

And what do we have just now? We're clearly not going to get your particular preference, but is that a good reason for taking the huff? "If we're not playing the way I want then I'm not playing at all!"

[Lambies Lost Doo]

reserved to Westminster and are currently being decided by an administration we did not vote for.

 

This is why I cannot be a nationalist and will vote "No" as I do not see Scotland as a block vote. You said "we did not vote for". But that is incorrect as a lot of people voted for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Scotland for Westminster elections.

[GrantB]

This is why I cannot be a nationalist and will vote "No" as I do not see Scotland as a block vote. You said "we did not vote for". But that is incorrect as a lot of people voted for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Scotland for Westminster elections.

 

It's doubtful any Scot will make the mistake of voting Lib Dem ever again...

[kni]

And what do we have just now? We're clearly not going to get your particular preference, but is that a good reason for taking the huff? "If we're not playing the way I want then I'm not playing at all!"

 

So stating a preference or opinion is taking the huff and "not playing"? You are, in effect, saying that I must accept the EU rule and play its corrupt game. No thanks!

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Don't understand this hatred of Lib Dems these days. They were in a coalition with Labour at Holyrood. For Westminster people voted for them so they could get in government and they did so in coalition with the largest party. In the SNP minority government from 2007 they cooperated with the conservatives on many votes. I think Lib Dems have been hampered by political naivety and hatred from left and right thinking how dare they make decisions. In Germany the CDU (conservatives) have been in coalition with the Social Democrats (Labour). We are too entrenched here.

[Blackpool Jags]

It's what they did once in that coalition with the Tories. Others will recount their levels of prostitution in greater detail than I can be bothered to remember, but a couple of wee nuggets spring to mind: the Tories', or to be more accurate, Andrew Lansley's hated Health & Social Care Bill - which did not feature in their manifesto(or that of any party for that matter), and was a bit of a surprise to Cameron himself (apparently) when proposed in the House - was gleefully supported by Clegg despite the protestations of many of those close to him.

 

The televised scenes of Clegg stomping the streets 'engaging in public consultation' on the Bill accompanied by Dave and others made swathes of electors, and political commentators gag with nausea.

 

Then there was the bending over by Clegg into the doggy-style position to take the Tories' tuition fees policy anally. Nuff said there.

 

Power at a price; the power of Clegg to develop his media image and become Deputy PM were, seemingly, events for which political principles were sent up in smoke without as much as a small wince.

 

 

[Guy Incognito]

"Morally, I don't think it is fair that England should have centre-left governments foisted upon it if that isn't what its citizens voted for, especially not now that Scotland and Wales have their own parliaments. It is to the credit of both Plaid Cymru and the SNP that its MPs abstain from voting on matters that only affect England (unlike their unionist counterparts)."

 

Fair points. Scottish Labour and Lib Dem MPs are whipped to vote in the Commons on English and Welsh matters. England should have its own Parliament to vote on English matters.

 

An independent Scotland will have to sign up to a fiscal treaty with Westminster or join the Euro. The Bank of England will not act as lender of last resort to Scottish banks without a fiscal treaty. Such a treaty would need to have agreements on taxation and spending plus strict regulations on banks' lending and capital reserves.

 

Given Barroso statements, the more likely outcome is that an independent Scotland will have to apply to join the EU, adopt the Euro and pay annual payments to the EU budgets. Even if the country votes Yes, the economy will still be controlled by the Bank of England in London or the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. The Irish chose Frankfurt and an independent Scotland will have take on a proportion on the UK's £7 billion loan to Dublin.

 

My preference is for a truly independent Scotland outside the EU but in EFTA with its own currency like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. However, that's not what we're being asked to vote for. Salmond is offering only separation but with an English currency and more rule from Brussels. That's subservience, not real independence.

 

I'd rather we had our own currency too but it would still appear to be in the rUK's best interests to remain in a currency union with Scotland. Given that we are England's second biggest trading partner, no chancellor in his or her right mind would introduce measures that would potentially impede English commerce. A currency union has a duty to all its members, and Scottish assets currently underpin sterling.

 

As far as the EU goes, the only scenario that comes close to being a precedent is that of German re-unification. Technically, Germany was a successor to the old West Germany. Why, then, should rUK be a successor state and not Scotland? It wouldn't be the same entity as the existing UK. Both Scotland and an rUK, it would seem to me, have an equal claim to be the UK's successor. Either way, as I said in the Independence thread a few months ago, it would surely work against the interests of the other EU members to impede our entry (or re-entry) into the EU.

 

I know you are no fan of the EU, kni, but consider this. At the moment Scotland sends only 6 representatives to Brussels. That is because Scotland is, technically, just a region of the UK. Slovakia, which has a population very similar to ours, sends 13. So if we are treated the same way it will result in our representation doubling.

 

Personally, I am quite easy-oasy about the EU; it has its pros and its cons. What might be better is to have a second referendum in the event of a Yes vote to determine whether we apply/stay in the EU. We might all be referendumed-out by that point though!

 

And what do we have just now? We're clearly not going to get your particular preference, but is that a good reason for taking the huff? "If we're not playing the way I want then I'm not playing at all!"

 

Exactly. I don't agree with a lot of the SNP's proposals vis-a-vis the mechanics of independence, most notably the issues of currency, head of state, NATO and business taxation. But as things stand I am still poised to vote Yes, because even the SNP's proposals would lift one hand off Scotland's shoulders as far as I am concerned.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Guy Incognito

[Guy Incognito]

 

This is why I cannot be a nationalist and will vote "No" as I do not see Scotland as a block vote. You said "we did not vote for". But that is incorrect as a lot of people voted for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Scotland for Westminster elections.

 

Semantics. You know exactly what I am getting at. The Lib Dems and the Tories were the third and fourth most popular parties respectively in Scotland as of the 2010 Westminster elections, and yet, on account of the UK's constitutional framework, they are in control of key areas of Scottish public life. That such a scenario can exist is not an acceptable state of affairs, to my mind.

 

[Jaggernaut]

So stating a preference or opinion is taking the huff and "not playing"? You are, in effect, saying that I must accept the EU rule and play its corrupt game. No thanks!

Yes, that's right. The EU basically rules Britain, so whether you think you are playing its game or not, you are.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Blackpool Jags what you say is valid but that is all non Scottish issues. GrantB said no Scot would vote Lib Dem again but what they have been criticised about is impacting England and Wales and not Scottish devolved institutions.

 

People don't understand devolution and the split of policy between Holyrood and Westminster. That is another reason why I think this referendum has come to early. If the No/Better Together campaign educate people on the current powers of Holyrood. the new powers that it will get soon and possible changes in the future that will take a lot of wind out of the nationalists sails. There is definitely not enough media and public scrutiny on Holyrood Parliament which I hope will change with the new devolution approach Scotland will take (hopefully).