SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

chewmylegoff

WhiteChristmas wrote: »

Not at all. Their smallest majority was 66 at a time when they had 44 MPs from Scotland.

Thanks for this. I think you meant to write "absolutely, you're right" instead of not at all though.

166 vs 100 = majority of 66

122 (i.e. 166 - 44) vs 144 (i.e. 100 + 44) = labour not in power

chewmylegoff

Kohoutek wrote: »

The idea that England would oppose Scottish independence because of Scotland's natural resources would be a very convincing argument in the heyday of the North Sea

just on this point, it's an non-argument anyway as unionism has been a core conservative policy since long before anyone knew there was oil in the north sea.

WhiteChristmas

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Thanks for this. I think you meant to write "absolutely, you're right" instead of not at all though.

166 vs 100 = majority of 66

122 (i.e. 166 - 44) vs 144 (i.e. 100 + 44) = labour not in power

Eh? Let's take this v e r y s l o w l y . . .

When we discount the Scottish seats, we don't transfer them to the other side.

UK Election result: 646 seats - 324 needed for majority, Labour win 355

Excluding Scotland: 587 seats - 294 needed for majority, Labour win 311

chewmylegoff

WhiteChristmas wrote: »

Eh? Let's take this v e r y s l o w l y . . .

When we discount the Scottish seats, we don't transfer them to the other side.

UK Election result: 646 seats - 324 needed for majority, Labour win 355

Excluding Scotland: 587 seats - 294 needed for majority, Labour win 311

except there was no discussion of completely discounting the scottish seats. the complaint was that scottish votes don't count within the union because no-one in scotland voted for con/lib.

clearly that is not the case, as scottish votes kept labour in power for a term when the majority was only 66. if the scots had voted for other parties, labour would not have governed in westminster (or may well have had to do so in coalition with whomever the scots had voted for i.e. lib dem or SNP).

therefore, discounting scottish votes altogether is not relevant to the point.

WhiteChristmas

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if the scots had voted for other parties, labour would not have governed in westminster

If people vote differently then elections have different results?

Blimey, hadn't realised that. You learn something every day.

Does it work for anyone else? Or just Scots?

chewmylegoff

WhiteChristmas wrote: »

If people vote differently then elections have different results?

feel free to continue with your terrible, oh so cutting posts, but i think you should probably be directing them at the person who suggested that the scottish vote has no say in determining westminster elections, rather than the person who simply pointed out that it actually did.

WhiteChristmas

Ach, you both twisted my nipples; nothing personal intended.

The point is, chewie, that Scotland is no more "responsible" for Labour's 2005 win than the transpennine conurbations which would also elect a sheep if it was wearing a red rosette.

Likewise, Sussex, Dorset and Hampshire aren't to "blame" for the coalition.

It's the swing seats; the Croydons, Hoves, Hemels and Eastleighs that determine our governments, not the tribal heartlands.

Since the attainment of universal suffrage in the UK, we've had a grand total of one election in which a single party won an overall majority of the votes; there is pretty much always someone, either group or region, legitimately saying "we didn't vote for this government".

At least the folk north of the border have a genuine alternative to the "big 3".

chewmylegoff

WhiteChristmas wrote: »

Ach, you both twisted my nipples; nothing personal intended.

The point is, chewie, that Scotland is no more "responsible" for Labour's 2005 win than the transpennine conurbations which would also elect a sheep if it was wearing a red rosette.

Likewise, Sussex, Dorset and Hampshire aren't to "blame" for the coalition.

It's the swing seats; the Croydons, Hoves, Hemels and Eastleighs that determine our governments, not the tribal heartlands.

Since the attainment of universal suffrage in the UK, we've had a grand total of one election in which a single party won an overall majority of the votes; there is pretty much always someone, either group or region, legitimately saying "we didn't vote for this government".

At least the folk north of the border have a genuine alternative to the "big 3".

i do agree with you on all of the above. the "it's all about your vote being counted" argument to which i was responding bemoans any parliamentary system as unfair to a region whenever the government does not reflect the regional opinion.

any region can raise this grievance approximately 50% of the time. it doesn't matter how granular a level you sink to, this remains the same. the only solution to it is to split the country up into 65 million kingdoms, each ruled by one person. this seems impractical.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

It's a bit of a non-argument TBH. There aren't many Labpur voters in Sevenoaks but they had to suffer a Labour government on more than one occasion.

See, this is why it irks a little.
Your comparing a district council to a country

With independance the people of Scotland would get the government they voted for, instead of what England votes for

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What about 1997 - 2010? Was that alright? I can't be bothered to look the numbers up but isn't it the case that labour were only in power for a significant chunk of this time because of their Scottish mps?

Independence won't solve this problem as there will always be periods where the country is governed by someone you didn't vote for.

For clarity, it's not about who I personally vote for, but who the Scottish people vote for.
I accept who gets into power.

Cameron has said he'll fight the independeance referendum with every fibre in his bosy, but why wasn't he fighting for the Scottish vote in the Elections?

He's only really giving it some thought since the Scottish election results has forced his hand.