Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't really see any trend except in Scotland which seems to be becoming a one party state.

I would see that 'trend' reversing sometime but the honeymoon period needs to run its course first.

The reason the main parties don't appeal in Scotland is the rising tide of nationalism.

Of course I selected last coalitions, which also happened to be Cons / Lib dems, so I guess there is a similarity there that may represent differently in the Labour Governments.

Certainly in Scotland, we went from

1971 - Split across Cons, Labour, Lib Dems & SNP
2010 - Predominantly Labour / Lib Dems with few SNP and only 1 Cons
2015 (Poll) - Majority SNP, 1 or 2 Labour & Lib / Dem

What are these three parties failing in Scotland, why aren't they appealing to the electorate there?
What do they intend to do? Many seem to be distancing themselves from engaging with the electorate meaningfully

purch

Generali wrote: »

FPTP is great if you basically have 2 parties: you turn an effective majority into a stable Government and indeed we've seen it work very well through the C20th.

I think the benefits of a stable Government are being underestimated. Anyone going abroad in the next few weeks will find this out to their cost, unless they have hedged their exposure.

As for voting reform, we have 600+ MP's and 800+ members of the Lords, which is a ludicrous amount of people for a country as small as ours.

I would suggest a 300 seat "Commons" voted on PR, and an upper house based on the current constituency system with Independent representatives, voted for on FPTP.

That way you would retain your local representative in Westminster, but have a Government that more closely reflects the will of the people.

.string.

purch wrote: »

I think the benefits of a stable Government are being underestimated. Anyone going abroad in the next few weeks will find this out to their cost, unless they have hedged their exposure.

As for voting reform, we have 600+ MP's and 800+ members of the Lords, which is a ludicrous amount of people for a country as small as ours.

I would suggest a 300 seat "Commons" voted on PR, and an upper house based on the current constituency system with Independent representatives, voted for on FPTP.

That way you would retain your local representative in Westminster, but have a Government that more closely reflects the will of the people.

Good points.

Re the H of L, I like the independence part; in fact I would like to see any organisation sponsoring "Lords" the intention being to prevent any vested interests from getting elected, including political parties and religions. I would not ban anyone with particular views however, excepting criminall or treasonous.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just looking at the Polls, Could the Conservatives get a coalition with UKIP and the Lib/ Dems?

I can only see one situation where a voting agreement with UKIP might be useful to the Tories (UKIP are, after all, loyal to the UK unlike some) but even then not in a coalition.


One or two scenarios might effectively put UKIP or the SUP with the balance of power, not as in the SNP scenario of Sturgeon's dreams.

kabayiri

purch wrote: »

...
As for voting reform, we have 600+ MP's and 800+ members of the Lords, which is a ludicrous amount of people for a country as small as ours.
...

Indeed. I mean, 800+ HOL members on expenses of £300 per day!
600+ MPs when so much legislation is written in Europe anyway.

Then we should add in the politicos in HolyRood and the Welsh assembly.

I wonder how the USA manage with a mere 100 senators is it, and 400 or so in the lower house ? Oh, and representing vastly more people.

kabayiri

If we end up with a Labour-led government without a clear majority it isn't hard to anticipate a period of instability.

It's lucky the money markets don't mind instability -- oh wait. They hate it !

We will all be the losers in the end.

(except the politicians like Nicola and friends; they will still get their jam...for sc**wing us all over)

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

If we end up with a Labour-led government without a clear majority it isn't hard to anticipate a period of instability.

It's lucky the money markets don't mind instability -- oh wait. They hate it !

We will all be the losers in the end.

(except the politicians like Nicola and friends; they will still get their jam...for sc**wing us all over)

I'm not so sure about the SNP getting their way judging by the pre election
hostility to the SNP. After all of that I don't imagine either Labour or Conservative negotiating with the SNP and conceding more than has been proposed already. They don't have a mandate for it.

On the other hand they would be consistent with the "Vow" in having talks with all political parties in Scotland, and listening to them rather than just the SNP. They would make sure that the non SNP parties got the credit of course.

Now that would be fun, with all the squeaky noises from the SNP

I think elanten would quickly run out of popcorn if that happens

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

Indeed. I mean, 800+ HOL members on expenses of £300 per day!
600+ MPs when so much legislation is written in Europe anyway.

Then we should add in the politicos in HolyRood and the Welsh assembly.

I wonder how the USA manage with a mere 100 senators is it, and 400 or so in the lower house ? Oh, and representing vastly more people.

perhaps because the US senate and House only represent the federal government

each state has their own government too

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

perhaps because the US senate and House only represent the federal government

each state has their own government too

This is true. Plus, I recollect the state of California getting into financial troubles -- a bit like the SNP would get Scotland into if given the chance.

It just feels a bit unresolved over here; we have created some regional assemblies but haven't worked out the balance between regional representation and central government.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - legitimacy

What precisely do you/the SNP understand by the word legitimacy when it comes to entitlement in the House of Commons?

What rights do you think result?

The same rights as every other MP there.

It's the Tories that are shouting about legitimacy. No-one else. They're saying Labour having to rely on SNP votes wouldn't be legitimate. But haven't said the same about themselves having to rely on Lib Dem votes for the last few years.

If SNP MP's don't have the same 'legitimacy' in their votes to support whatever party they wish. But the Lib Dems/DUP/SDLP do. Then what do you think they are saying ?

Oh and I'd kindly ask you to give me at least a little time to reply to your queries, before going about crowing on other threads about how I didn't answer. Thanks.