Scottish independence - less or more likely with Tory victory?

alaimacerc

sarumite wrote: »

I think that is semantics. It was pretty obvious what Godge meant. Scotland had the choice to become independent from London and chose not to.

And I think it was pretty obvious Dub meant when they said "a nation within a political union". Godge started the semantics-fest on that one.

eire4

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Tories have democratic right to rule over the United Kingdom. Their support in Scotland is irrelevant.

Apply that logic to Texas and it sounds rightly ridiculous.

To be fair there are a lot of things that sound ridiculous in Texas. Ted Cruz spings to mind:)

eire4

Godge wrote: »

Last time I checked Scotland voted no to becoming a nation.

They voted no to becoming an independant nation they already are a nation.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

FPTP means that a party such as the Green party can get almost the same number of votes as the SNP and yet have 55 fewer MP's. The SNP won 50% of the vote and got over 90% of the seats. They representation in Parliament far exceeds their share of the Scottish vote. That is the system they are operating in, so all is fair in love and war etc. However it is also the system that means the Tories have a majority in London with only one Tory MP coming from Scotland. They cannot complain about their under-representation in the British government without drawing attention to their over representation in the British parliament.

You lost me with the Green Party. They got 1.3% of the Scottish vote. Your original point though was to try and dismiss the landslide win for the SNP in Scotland and suggest they somehow lack democratic legitimacy:
"There is also the questions of democratic legitimacy with respect to the SNP"


There is no question at all over their democratic legitimacy. They got roughly 25% more of the vote then the seond placed Labour party. That is a massive margin in politics.

sarumite

eire4 wrote: »

You lost me with the Green Party. They got 1.3% of the Scottish vote. Your original point though was to try and dismiss the landslide win for the SNP in Scotland and suggest they somehow lack democratic legitimacy:
"There is also the questions of democratic legitimacy with respect to the SNP"


There is no question at all over their democratic legitimacy. They got roughly 25% more of the vote then the seond placed Labour party. That is a massive margin in politics.

It was a UK election, not a Scottish one. The Green party and the SNP were competing in the same election. Despite getting almost the same number of votes in the election, they don't have anything close to the same level of representation in parliament.

You seem to be ignoring the original comment on democractic legitimacy. If you question the legitimacy of an English based Tory government ruling over Scotland then you must also question the legitimacy of the SNP having only 50% of the vote and yet over 90% of the MP's. You cannot argue in favour of the former without acknowledging the latter.

A Dub in Glasgo

sarumite wrote: »

It was a UK election, not a Scottish one. The Green party and the SNP were competing in the same election. Despite getting almost the same number of votes in the election, they don't have anything close to the same level of representation in parliament.

The SNP only stood in 59 seats with an average vote of 25,000 per seat. I am not sure how many seats the Greens contested, maybe you can let me know

You seem to be ignoring the original comment on democractic legitimacy. If you question the legitimacy of an English based Tory government ruling over Scotland then you must also question the legitimacy of the SNP having only 50% of the vote and yet over 90% of the MP's. You cannot argue in favour of the former without acknowledging the latter.

Yes and are you consistent? do you think it is OK for the SNP to get 95% of the seats on 50% of the vote?

KingBrian2

Why not Parnell got us moving in the right direction. If the Scots want it strongly enough than sure the English will let them have it.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

It was a UK election, not a Scottish one. The Green party and the SNP were competing in the same election. Despite getting almost the same number of votes in the election, they don't have anything close to the same level of representation in parliament.

You seem to be ignoring the original comment on democractic legitimacy. If you question the legitimacy of an English based Tory government ruling over Scotland then you must also question the legitimacy of the SNP having only 50% of the vote and yet over 90% of the MP's. You cannot argue in favour of the former without acknowledging the latter.

I didn't argue anything of the sort at all. I am merely pointing out to you that given the SNP finished a full 25% odd points ahead of the second placed Labour Party in Scotland there is no question of their credientials in Scotland. That is a massive margin in politcs.
As for the Greens I am of course only talking about their votes in Scotland where as with the other parties in Scotland they were a long way behind the SNP.

sarumite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP only stood in 59 seats with an average vote of 25,000 per seat. I am not sure how many seats the Greens contested, maybe you can let me know



Yes and are you consistent? do you think it is OK for the SNP to get 95% of the seats on 50% of the vote?

As mentioned before, I would prefer a system of PR myself. In such a system, the tories wouldn't have had an outright majority and the SNP wouldn't have had as many MP's. It also means that people who voted for the Green party would gave their opnions represented in parliament.

sarumite

eire4 wrote: »

I didn't argue anything of the sort at all. I am merely pointing out to you that given the SNP finished a full 25% odd points ahead of the second placed Labour Party in Scotland there is no question of their credientials in Scotland. That is a massive margin in politcs.
As for the Greens I am of course only talking about their votes in Scotland where as with the other parties in Scotland they were a long way behind the SNP.

You are arguing that because the SNP had the most number votes, they should have the most seats? IF so, I am entirely agreeing with you. However you appear not to actually be addressing the point I am making and willfully ignoring the context it was made in. If the SNP or their supporters complain about the democratic legitimacy of an all English government ruling Scotland then they must acknowledge there are the same question regarding their level of representation in parliament. (As for the greens, it was a UK wide election, not just a Scottish one. The people of Scotland had a choice and chose to stay part of the UK. There is no way to justify having an SNP vote worth 55 green votes in the same election)

A Dub in Glasgo

sarumite wrote: »

You are arguing that because the SNP had the most number votes, they should have the most seats? IF so, I am entirely agreeing with you. However you appear not to actually be addressing the point I am making and willfully ignoring the context it was made in. If the SNP or their supporters complain about the democratic legitimacy of an all English government ruling Scotland then they must acknowledge there are the same question regarding their level of representation in parliament. (As for the greens, it was a UK wide election, not just a Scottish one. The people of Scotland had a choice and chose to stay part of the UK. There is no way to justify having an SNP vote worth 55 green votes in the same election)

People have acknowledged what you are saying although disagree on the relative size of the outcome

If PR was used, the Tories would not have got an overall majority and the SNP would not got as many seats. I know which one of those scenerios is more important and it seems strange to continue to say 'whatabout' the SNP number.

sarumite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

People have acknowledged what you are saying although disagree on the relative size of the outcome

Please read what I write. It was a directed statement, not a general one

If PR was used, the Tories would not have got an overall majority and the SNP would not got as many seats. I know which one of those scenerios is more important and it seems strange to continue to say 'whatabout' the SNP number.

Its the same scenario with different outcomes for different parties. That is the point. I am not saying "whatabout" the SNP. That is not my argument. It seems strange to me that you complain about the democratic legitimacy of one outcome from the scenario but not the other.

feargale

The SNP have no responsibility for the electoral system. It was created by others and has been maintained by others. So now that it confers an inflated majority on the SNP are they supposed to surrender some of their seats? I think they will say " no, thanks," or in Glasgow maybe something similar but in more colourful language.
Shades of Ireland 1918.

A Dub in Glasgo

sarumite wrote: »

Please read what I write. It was a directed statement, not a general one


Its the same scenario with different outcomes for different parties. That is the point. I am not saying "whatabout" the SNP. That is not my argument. It seems strange to me that you complain about the democratic legitimacy of one outcome from the scenario but not the other.

One is in Governement and the other is not therefore there is a real material difference, I thought that would be obvious.

sarumite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

One is in Governement and the other is not therefore there is a real material difference, I thought that would be obvious.

And this time last year I would have agreed with you. However since then the Scots were given a choice of independence and chose not to take it.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Tories have democratic right to rule over the United Kingdom. Their support in Scotland is irrelevant.

Apply that logic to Texas and it sounds rightly ridiculous.

All you have demonstrated with this is that you don't even understand what democracy is.

A Dub in Glasgo

sarumite wrote: »

And this time last year I would have agreed with you. However since then the Scots were given a choice of independence and chose not to take it.

I have articulated why Scottish Independence is more likely under the current Tory Governement (this thread) especially when said Tory Government got 15% support in Scotland. You may disagree with folk taking that line although I doubt that will influence their view. You need to remember that the people in Scotland were begged to stay in the union and Scotland was apparantly part of a family of nations therefore it was better as a union rather than independent. The whole tagline of the unionist campaign was 'Better Together'!!

sarumite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I have articulated why Scottish Independence is more likely under the current Tory Governement (this thread) especially when said Tory Government got 15% support in Scotland. You may disagree with folk taking that line although I doubt that will influence their view. You need to remember that the people in Scotland were begged to stay in the union and Scotland was apparantly part of a family of nations therefore it was better as a union rather than independent. The whole tagline of the unionist campaign was 'Better Together'!!

Why would I disagree? IMO Independence is more a question of when rather than if (Had Salmond ran a better campaign and was able to answer the questions on currency and the EU, who knows what the outcome would have been!). I do remember the 'better together' campaign, however I am failing to see the relevance of this.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

You are arguing that because the SNP had the most number votes, they should have the most seats? IF so, I am entirely agreeing with you. However you appear not to actually be addressing the point I am making and willfully ignoring the context it was made in. If the SNP or their supporters complain about the democratic legitimacy of an all English government ruling Scotland then they must acknowledge there are the same question regarding their level of representation in parliament. (As for the greens, it was a UK wide election, not just a Scottish one. The people of Scotland had a choice and chose to stay part of the UK. There is no way to justify having an SNP vote worth 55 green votes in the same election)

No I was merely pointing out that your attempt to question their democratic legitimacy was not valid as they finished about 25 points ahead of second placed Labour in Scotland which is a massive margin in an election. As simple as that.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

All you have demonstrated with this is that you don't even understand what democracy is.

I understand democracy to be one man one vote, perhaps your understanding of democracy is different.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

And this time last year I would have agreed with you. However since then the Scots were given a choice of independence and chose not to take it.

It would seem there may have been some buyers remorse since then among some no voters. We will see time will tell. But certainly those in favour of independance have grown in confidence since the referendum.

sarumite

eire4 wrote: »

No I was merely pointing out that your attempt to question their democratic legitimacy was not valid as they finished about 25 points ahead of second placed Labour in Scotland which is a massive margin in an election. As simple as that.

Please read what I wrote. There was a caveat to the questioning of their democtatic legitimacy. Furthermore even if I was questioning it (again, there was a caveat associated with that), I wasn't questioning it on the grounds that you laid out. You haven't actually made any attempt to repudiate what I said.

Sheldons Brain

sarumite wrote: »

And this time last year I would have agreed with you. However since then the Scots were given a choice of independence and chose not to take it.

Promises were made at that time, and it isn't clear that London will fulfil these, especially their spirit.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

Please read what I wrote. There was a caveat to the questioning of their democtatic legitimacy. Furthermore even if I was questioning it (again, there was a caveat associated with that), I wasn't questioning it on the grounds that you laid out. You haven't actually made any attempt to repudiate what I said.

As long as your not questioning the SNP's democratic legitimacy in Scotland based on their massive margin of victory over second placed Labour then we are in agreement.

ancapailldorcha

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Promises were made at that time, and it isn't clear that London will fulfil these, especially their spirit.

I'd say they will. Apparently, they're planning to devolve certain powers to Manchester as part of their "Northern Powerhouse" plan.

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32731463

alaimacerc

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say they will. Apparently, they're planning to devolve certain powers to Manchester as part of their "Northern Powerhouse" plan.

How does that go to the point about Scotland at all? It's just more piecemeal "localism", so-called. From a party whose track record is to neuter and micro-manage local government at every turn. If anything, it'll serve to create more anomalies and confusion: yet another ad hoc set of powers that some authorities will have, that a neighbouring one will not.

sarumite

eire4 wrote: »

As long as your not questioning the SNP's democratic legitimacy in Scotland based on their massive margin of victory over second placed Labour then we are in agreement.

If you had actually read what I written instead of hastily writing a knee-jerk response, you wouldn't have drawn the wrong conclusion. I have never mentioned (nor questioned) SNP's margin of victory.

eire4

sarumite wrote: »

If you had actually read what I written instead of hastily writing a knee-jerk response, you wouldn't have drawn the wrong conclusion. I have never mentioned (nor questioned) SNP's margin of victory.

Originally Posted by sarumite
There is also the questions of democratic legitimacy with respect to the SNP. They only got about 50% of the vote in Scotland, yet they got the vast majority of the seats. There representation of the Scottish people doe not accurately reflect the will of the Scottish people.




I never said you questioned the margin of victory for the SNP in Scotland I said you questioned their democratic legitimacy which in the above quote you did. I talked about the margin of victory to emphasize their democratic legitimacy.

sarumite

eire4 wrote: »

Originally Posted by sarumite
There is also the questions of democratic legitimacy with respect to the SNP. They only got about 50% of the vote in Scotland, yet they got the vast majority of the seats. There representation of the Scottish people doe not accurately reflect the will of the Scottish people.




I never said you questioned the margin of victory for the SNP in Scotland I said you questioned their democratic legitimacy which in the above quote you did. I talked about the margin of victory to emphasize their democratic legitimacy.

It was response to a post - it was said within the context of that post. I then clarified that position several pages ago when I said this

"They cannot complain about their under-representation in the British government without drawing attention to their over representation in the British parliament." Whether they support or oppose PR, my statement holds true."

As I said, my statement holds true and that is still the case. If, as within the context of the response, they complain about the democratic legitimacy of an virtually all English government ruling Scotland, then questions about their democratic legitimacy will also be raised. That was my original point and it's a point you haven't made any attempt to counter. Instead you keep repeating the completely irrelevant point about their margin of victory.