Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

They got the majority of the vote in a part of the country not all of it.

Baldwin got over 50% of the vote in '31 and came close in '35 in the whole of the UK.....

Salisbury got 50% in 1900 and 51% in 1886. Although that was before ROPA 1918.

Generali wrote: »

...If you look at regional voting I bet the Tories got more than 50% in parts of the South in the 80s and that Lab did the same in chunks of the North in the 90s & 00s.

I haven't seen a regional breakdown of the 2015 results. The BBC had one for 2010, which showed the Conservatives getting 49.9% of the vote in the South-East.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...Looking back over the last 70 years, the highest UK vote was just over 40%, so I doubt that there were areas over a 59 seat area.

You'd be wrong. See above.

And the South-East is actually an 84 seat area.:)

And the Cons got 47% in the East in 2010, which is a 58 seat area.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

You'd be wrong. See above.

I said I would doubt, but very open to evidence

antrobus wrote: »

And the South-East is actually an 84 seat area.:)

I'll have a look.

If correct, what does it say about the South East having a majority of the vote (over 50%) over 84 seats with the opposite end of the country diametrically opposite.

What does that say about how the parliament is representing the UK.

antrobus wrote: »

And the Cons got 47% in the East in 2010, which is a 58 seat area.

47% is not a majority, albeit getting closer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

No one denies that our economy is heavily dependent on a single industry.

Oh don't wind me up by trying to re-write history ISTL, that is utter lies and you know it.

The entire SNP and YES campaign just spent two years telling us that Oil was the "icing on the cake" and the "cherry on top" of the Scottish economy.

That we were absolutely, definitely, NOT under any circumstances dependent on oil revenue for FFA or Indy to stack up.

Now they admit it was a complete nonsense to claim so, and that Scotland would be committing "economic suicide" if we lose the rUK subsidy.

The SNP would like to controls to grow all areas of business and make the country less dependent on one singular resource.

So nothing unexpected from the economists point given oil price is almost at 50% of what it was at peak

Eh?

When non-SNP economists, and indeed many interested observers right here on these boards, were warning of this very scenario prior to the referendum all that came out of the SNP and their supporters was talk of secret hidden oil fields, claim of a new oil boom, denial that we were subsidised, and let's not forget the immortal...

"Too Wee, Too Poor"

Now an SNP economist says it, all of a sudden the party faithful agree vociferously and demand never ending subsidies even with FFA.

Risible.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

:rotfl: Good to see the RT humour is still in tact!

I'll admit it now. One of my pet hates is the rise of the career politician.

What is wrong with this 20yo completing her degree and working for a a number of years before bidding to become an MP?

Don't we want people who have gained life and business experience?

I thought her "nut" comment showed a level of immaturity. She won't be the only careerist though.

I agree with you, career politicians who come too early into the job don't have the real-life experience that is needed to do their Job. (Regardless of what party the hale from). It encapsulates my objection to a H of Lords comprised of elected politicians as proposed by Clegg & co..

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

The BBC had one for 2010, which showed the Conservatives getting 49.9% of the vote in the South-East.

antrobus wrote: »

And the South-East is actually an 84 seat area.:)

As I said, I'm always open to reviewing facts, so I started looking at the South East

First five seats checked (started in the East)

North Thanet 48.98% (-3.68%)

South Thanet 38.13% (-9.86%)

Canterbury 42.87% (-1.94%)

Dover 43.28% (-0.73%)

Gillingham 47.98% (1.76%)

So yes, a close to majority result in some of these seats, but not a majority and for those claiming a majority in that area, it would be good to see their facts.

Please note, I have note done the same in Scotland and would presume with only a 50.4% majority, there will be constituencies where there are below majority wins.

Same therefore that I would accept that there will be some constituencies which the Conservatives do hold a majority.

It's the majority over 59 (or so) seats we are talking about

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh don't wind me up by trying to re-write history ISTL, that is utter lies and you know it.

I'm not rewriting history, nor am I reverting to history by going back to the referendum.

The SNP (of which I am not a member, just a voter for) clearly said that oil is not a burden for Scotland but an asset which many countries would love.

I ask you, why is Scotland's revenues so reliant on oil and why is it not diverse enough?

Scotland for some time has been moving away from Westminster politics, none more so relevant than was shown in this election.

An majority vote attaining 56 unprecedented (unlikely to every be repeated) out of 59 available seats, shows that Scotland is still not appeased by a devolved government with limited powers or the Smith commission which does not go far enough

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You absolutely can blame it on the SNP.

It was the fear of the SNP holding a weak Labour minority government to ransom (as indeed they were proudly claiming they would through the campaign) and pushing the country too far left that likely caused a Tory majority.

If you hand a potential fear tool like this to the Conservatives you should fully expect them to use it.

Here's another 'fear tool', uttered from SNP and Labour alike.

Vote Tory - destroy the NHS.

It's equally simplistic and lacking in understanding, but it probably works for many people.

The wider concern I heard on the radio earlier today was fear of the unknown. Some voters here just didn't know how a SNP / minority-Labour government would play out; what it would mean for them.

This was Labour *and* SNP's fault for not spelling it out clearly. All this business of "vote on a case by case basis" is too vague to trust someone on.

Mr Milliband should have declared his position re: the SNP much much earlier.

No one can say they didn't know what they were getting with a Tory majority government. They have been pretty clear and upfront.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...

By parts of the south and chunks of the north, I'm wondering how you are partitioning this.
...

Why partition things if you are talking about a UK wide election?

This could lead to regional division.

Would you be happy with the London region acting in complete self interest, at the cost of Yorkshire / Wales / Scotland / SW etc? I wouldn't!

Remember, London is almost twice the voter base of Scotland.

I don't want any specific region of the UK thinking it has an absolute right to more of the cake than the other regions. It only creates resentment.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Why partition things if you are talking about a UK wide election?

I responded to a post which said that the SNP did not have a majority of the vote in Scotland and comparing it with the other parties which represent a smaller percentage of the electorate in their areas

The response to my post brought up the parts and chunks.

kabayiri wrote: »

This could lead to regional division.

To be fair, this regional division has been around and grown for a couple of decades now.

It's not a new phenomenom.

It was why politics moved to a devolved government in Scotland a number of years ago.

kabayiri wrote: »

Would you be happy with the London region acting in complete self interest, at the cost of Yorkshire / Wales / Scotland / SW etc? I wouldn't!

Why do you think there is a difference in politics in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland?

I've heard a number of comments suggesting that HS2 gor example should start in Newcastle for example.

Why is it London centric?

Why was the Olympics positioned in London and not the Midlands.

A huge reason for the rise in politics against Westminster is because too much is London centric

kabayiri wrote: »

Remember, London is almost twice the voter base of Scotland.

I question the twice figure, but you also have more seats (73) as opposed to Scotland's 59

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't want any specific region of the UK thinking it has an absolute right to more of the cake than the other regions. It only creates resentment.

hmmmm, it only creates resentment because those constituencies resent the centralism that currently prevails.