UK TV debate

[Dissolution]

Keep on and on asking voting until they eventually come up with the result you seek, then, never vote on the subject again. Is that about it?

Clearly.
Salmond was selling it as a once in a generation opportunity, in order to try and generate more votes.
He's since talked about another vote and another chance to win.
A politician saying one thing and doing another is hardly a rare occurrence, though.

The independence issue is unlikely to go away now.
It's probably just a matter of time until it happens.

 

[Francesca R]

if the SNP do win a sizeable vote in the General Election then they may well seek [a referendum]

Seems risky to me. Declining referenda-on-demand seems eminently reasonable. Calling for one eight months after a no vote seems non-credible. Well, we may see.

 

[CapelDodger]

Clearly.
Salmond was selling it as a once in a generation opportunity, in order to try and generate more votes.
He's since talked about another vote and another chance to win.
A politician saying one thing and doing another is hardly a rare occurrence, though.

Saying stuff is all Salmond can do now.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seems risky to me. Declining referenda-on-demand seems eminently reasonable. Calling for one eight months after a no vote seems non-credible. Well, we may see.

Indeed. At a time when so much real work needs to be done on the economy, the NHS, the care system, social cohesion and the list goes on, another referendum would look like political OCD and seem completely irresponsible. Which it would be, of course.

 

[Architect]

Seems risky to me. Declining referenda-on-demand seems eminently reasonable. Calling for one eight months after a no vote seems non-credible. Well, we may see.

But you wouldn't be their target audience.

 

[Francesca R]

That is my prediction of how it will play to Scottish voters. OCD as above post.

 

[Craig B]

Keep on and on asking voting until they eventually come up with the result you seek, then, never vote on the subject again. Is that about it?

If the people of Iceland demand a referendum on rejoining Denmark, and the Icelandic government unreasonably resists this popular demand; I will be on the side of the people. Now say that again with Norway and Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The truth is that once independence has been achieved, it is rare that there is a popular demand to reverse it. But if there were, that would be perfectly democratic.

 

[MikeG]

Here is the current state of the polls, from the BBC's poll of polls:

Conservative 34% +0
Labour 34% +0
UKIP 13% +0
Liberal Democrats 8% +0
Green 5% +0
Others 6% +0

"Others" includes the Nationalist parties of Scotland, NI, and Wales. It would seem preposterous beyond words that these folk, bottom of the heap (none of them individually beating the Greens, and collectively only 1 percentage point ahead of the Greens), could actually be involved in power in any way, shape or form. That would be a gross perversion of democracy, and would make so many people so angry that I repeat my earlier assertion: years in the political wilderness awaits for any party that relied on them to take power.

 

[Francesca R]

It would seem preposterous beyond words that these folk, bottom of the heap (none of them individually beating the Greens, and collectively only 1 percentage point ahead of the Greens), could actually be involved in power in any way, shape or form.

In some countries you have to get a threshold vote share to get into parliament at all. This is why the Free Democrats can't be part of Germany's coalition any more.

But that is not the way it works in the UK so your assertion is baseless. And anyone who has supported winner takes all (which is itself a "gross perversion of democracy" according to many, myself included) would be supremely hypocritical in drawing your conclusion.

 

[Craig B]

Here is the current state of the polls, from the BBC's poll of polls:

Conservative 34% +0
Labour 34% +0
UKIP 13% +0
Liberal Democrats 8% +0
Green 5% +0
Others 6% +0

"Others" includes the Nationalist parties of Scotland, NI, and Wales. It would seem preposterous beyond words that these folk, bottom of the heap (none of them individually beating the Greens, and collectively only 1 percentage point ahead of the Greens), could actually be involved in power in any way, shape or form. That would be a gross perversion of democracy, and would make so many people so angry that I repeat my earlier assertion: years in the political wilderness awaits for any party that relied on them to take power.

I think there's something you haven't grasped. It's such a ludicrous omission that you must have had a brainstorm. Of course the SNP is at the bottom of the heap. It's electorate represents only one tenth of that of the UK as a whole. In the area in which it is politically active, it may well be massively dominant following the next election.
What you are saying is that no party centred on any of the smaller countries of the UK can ever be taken into account, or participate in the governance of the UK, even though these countries are subject to the UK.
Well, keep this imperialist nonsense up, and see how long the Union lasts!
The politics of Scotland and that of England have now diverged. The union of countries must accommodate itself to that, or be dissolved.

 

[MikeG]

I think there's something you haven't grasped. It's such a ludicrous omission that you must have had a brainstorm. Of course the SNP is at the bottom of the heap. It's electorate represents only one tenth of that of the UK as a whole. In the area in which it is politically active, it may well be massively dominant following the next election.

It isn't me who hasn't grasped things. Oh, and your electorate is only 8% of the nation's total. Which to anyone in their right mind would mean you get.........erm...........8%-ish of the influence. But if your excess of politicians and your nationalist party hold the balance of power, what part of "travesty of democracy" are you struggling with? Particularly when your little nationalistas have already said they wouldn't work with the Conservatives even if they were the comfortable winners of the election.

What you are saying is [a whole lot of things I am NOT saying snipped]

.........the usual straw edifice.

 

[Francesca R]

Incidentally the Tory government of 1992-7 relied on support from the UUP a few times and the UUP never had a vote share above 3%.

 

[MikeG]

Incidentally the Tory government of 1992-7 relied on support from the UUP a few times and the UUP never had a vote share above 3%.

True, but it didn't rely on them to stay in power.

 

[Craig B]

It isn't me who hasn't grasped things. Oh, and your electorate is only 8% of the nation's total. Which to anyone in their right mind would mean you get.........erm...........8%-ish of the influence. But if your excess of politicians and your nationalist party hold the balance of power, what part of "travesty of democracy" are you struggling with?



.........the usual straw edifice.

So the status of Scotland as a country, the Vow to give Scotland measures of self government is all nonsense because having 8% of the population gives Scotland no more status than any other 8% of the population of the UK. Fine. That's what I thought the Unionists believed. But since the referendum campaign they've been swearing undying devotion to Scottish self determination within the UK.

A scam? If you're saying so, I agree.

 

[MikeG]

So the status of Scotland as a country, the Vow to give Scotland measures of self government is all nonsense because having 8% of the population gives Scotland no more status than any other 8% of the population of the UK. Fine. That's what I thought the Unionists believed. But since the referendum campaign they've been swearing undying devotion to Scottish self determination within the UK.

A scam? If you're saying so, I agree.

I talked about any of those things, did I? I must have been in a daze. Perhaps you could point out where I said anything about any of those spurious subjects. Thanks.

 

[Craig B]

I talked about any of those things, did I? I must have been in a daze. Perhaps you could point out where I said anything about any of those spurious subjects. Thanks.

Nowhere. They're spurious. They are simply not to be taken into account. Therefore 8% is 8%. That's my point.

 

[MikeG]

You missed where this is a national election, for a national parliament. You also probably forgot that you lost the independence referendum. Not everything in the Britain revolves around Scotland you know.

 

[Craig B]

You missed where this is a national election, for a national parliament. You also probably forgot that you lost the independence referendum. Not everything in the Britain revolves around Scotland you know.

I am not suggesting that it does. I am suggesting that small parties may make deals with larger ones, and that the national parties in the smaller countries are as much entitled to do this as any other parties, in function of the seats they gain in Westminster. If they are not, then I think the Union of the countries will be put in severe jeopardy.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Scotland is one of the last real possessions of the now pathetic British empire, it is not a question of if Scotland and I believe eventually even wales breaking away but when. The fact is Scotland will be independent ,the march of history is clearly against any remnant of old imperialism. Scotland has a fair bit less than six million citizens and yet the SNP is the third largest party in the UK, that clearly says a lot. Of all the old colonial nations that have got independence from Britain not one has made any real attempt to rejoin ,that clearly also says a lot. Again I am hardly unbiased but I think its clear Scotland will get independence.

 

[ddt]

Here is the current state of the polls, from the BBC's poll of polls:

Conservative 34% +0
Labour 34% +0
UKIP 13% +0
Liberal Democrats 8% +0
Green 5% +0
Others 6% +0

"Others" includes the Nationalist parties of Scotland, NI, and Wales. It would seem preposterous beyond words that these folk, bottom of the heap (none of them individually beating the Greens, and collectively only 1 percentage point ahead of the Greens), could actually be involved in power in any way, shape or form. That would be a gross perversion of democracy, and would make so many people so angry that I repeat my earlier assertion: years in the political wilderness awaits for any party that relied on them to take power.

Personally, I think that it is a travesty and perversion of democracy that a party that only gets 37% of the vote, gets a majority in parliament and can govern on its own. That's also happened (under Blair, IIRC).

Look, it's a consequence of how your election system works. You have chosen for FPTP. You even had a referendum on it, whether to replace it with STV (aka AV) - but not with PR as the LibDems actually had wanted. And FPTP does give over-proportional influence to parties with a strong regional power base.

So, deal with it.