The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

abz88

Shakethedisease said:

I'm going by the mandate win in 2016. You're going by YouGov and Panelbase. Do actual Scottish voters votes in Scottish General elections not count anymore for you ? 

So the 2016 election when Unionist parties got more than 50% of the votes and seats based on their manifestos? Are you not also "forgetting those who cannot vote in elections, yet can in a scottish independence referendum. The franchises are different", or does that also only apply to situations that don't fit your agenda? Do Scottish voters that voted for Unionist parties and voted No in the referendum not count anymore for you?

Shakethedisease

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

Herzlos

You're both correct here, polling and vote numbers show just under 50% of the vote for openly pro-independence parties, who got the bulk of seats in both parliaments.

However, if we say that the main government can't do anything with less than  50%, then we'd have cancelled brexit and be stuck in complete paralysis.

Shakethedisease

You're right. Having to have 50% of the voteshare is not how UK democracy works.... unless you're a Scottish voter of course. Because in that case your Parliament and your votes can simply be dismissed on the basis that the 'wrong' parties hold a majority.  So we add up all the other parties votes and use them instead. 

Herzlos

Shakethedisease said:

You're right. Having to have 50% of the voteshare is not how UK democracy works.... unless you're a Scottish voter of course. Because in that case your Parliament and your votes can simply be dismissed on the basis that the 'wrong' parties hold a majority.  So we add up all the other parties votes and use them instead. 

Exactly. I don't even mind it as a metric, we really should be getting 50+% share on anything in a governing system.
It's the rampant hypocrisy that 34% is a clear mandate for the Tories to drive head with Brexit but 45% is insufficient for the SNP to even ask the people.

Una_Voidable

Herzlos said:

Shakethedisease said:

You're right. Having to have 50% of the voteshare is not how UK democracy works.... unless you're a Scottish voter of course. Because in that case your Parliament and your votes can simply be dismissed on the basis that the 'wrong' parties hold a majority.  So we add up all the other parties votes and use them instead. 

Exactly. I don't even mind it as a metric, we really should be getting 50+% share on anything in a governing system.
It's the rampant hypocrisy that 34% is a clear mandate for the Tories to drive head with Brexit but 45% is insufficient for the SNP to even ask the people.

45% of the 68% that could be bothered to vote equals just over 30% of Scots voted for the SNP if you want to be fair about how you use your figures, because UK-wide the Tories had 46.6% of the vote so I don't know where your 34% came from? It doesn't matter anyway because 52% of those that voted in 2016 for Brexit was the majority that matters and counts.
Just like in the Scottish indyref when 55.3% of those that voted said they wanted to stay in the UK.

Don't you think that 45% of those that voted in Scotland for the SNP is a poor showing for a party with independence as its' main purpose? Because if more Scots did want independence like you keep trying to suggest, that figure should surely be much higher. Which means that devout indy supporters are again on a hiding to nothing and it's really time they accepted what the only stat's that count are telling them: they have not got enough support for Scottish independence to become a reality yet.

baldelectrician

Una_Voidable said:

Herzlos said:

Shakethedisease said:

You're right. Having to have 50% of the voteshare is not how UK democracy works.... unless you're a Scottish voter of course. Because in that case your Parliament and your votes can simply be dismissed on the basis that the 'wrong' parties hold a majority.  So we add up all the other parties votes and use them instead. 

Exactly. I don't even mind it as a metric, we really should be getting 50+% share on anything in a governing system.
It's the rampant hypocrisy that 34% is a clear mandate for the Tories to drive head with Brexit but 45% is insufficient for the SNP to even ask the people.

45% of the 68% that could be bothered to vote equals just over 30% of Scots voted for the SNP if you want to be fair about how you use your figures, because UK-wide the Tories had 46.6% of the vote so I don't know where your 34% came from? It doesn't matter anyway because 52% of those that voted in 2016 for Brexit was the majority that matters and counts.
Just like in the Scottish indyref when 55.3% of those that voted said they wanted to stay in the UK.

Don't you think that 45% of those that voted in Scotland for the SNP is a poor showing for a party with independence as its' main purpose? Because if more Scots did want independence like you keep trying to suggest, that figure should surely be much higher. Which means that devout indy supporters are again on a hiding to nothing and it's really time they accepted what the only stat's that count are telling them: they have not got enough support for Scottish independence to become a reality yet.

What I think is that we elect members of the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto and elect parties who either oppose or support independence.
As things stand now the majority of MSP's elected support a referendum.
There is a mandate for  a second referendum

abz88

Shakethedisease said:

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 majority votes for a second indy ref. I'm sorry but thats how democracy works. It's how Westminster works too. 
Are you saying now that majorities in Parliaments mean nothing now. Or just when it's Scottish voters doing the voting ? Then we apparently revert to vote shares instead ?

Your saying that we should add up votes for all opposition parties and then do democracy that way ? What kind of daft way of doing things is that ?  Would you advocate the same for Westminster ? 
Also worth noting that had the Scottish General election been held on the same FPTP basis as UK ones are the SNP would be holding almost all seats in Holyrood right now.

The Scottish Parliament has passed 2 votes on issue's Westminster have deemed reserved and which the Scottish Parliament have so far failed to act upon, either by holding a referendum or challenging in court whether or not they need Westminster approval. Again though, it was you that claimed we can't use Holyrood or Westminster results as a mandate for anything as it doesn't represent the Indy vote correctly.
If you want to try and convince Westminster to grant approval for a vote that would require 50% of the electorate to vote in favor of, then a mandate of some form that shows more than 50% of the electorate actually want Indy would be a start (which you can't do)
Majorities in Parliaments mean nothing when you try and legislate on matters you have no authority to legislate on, yes.
Adding up how many seats/votes (in proportional representation) is exactly how democracy works... The SNP have a minority government, propped up by the Greens that are voting through issues that they did not run with in their manifesto. The LibDems were virtually destroyed in Westminster for doing the same in their power sharing agreement with the Conservatives, but apparently its fine for the Greens to do as it fits your agenda. 
Also worth noting that FPTP is irrelevant when talking about Holyrood.

abz88

Herzlos said:

Shakethedisease said:

You're right. Having to have 50% of the voteshare is not how UK democracy works.... unless you're a Scottish voter of course. Because in that case your Parliament and your votes can simply be dismissed on the basis that the 'wrong' parties hold a majority.  So we add up all the other parties votes and use them instead. 

Exactly. I don't even mind it as a metric, we really should be getting 50+% share on anything in a governing system.
It's the rampant hypocrisy that 34% is a clear mandate for the Tories to drive head with Brexit but 45% is insufficient for the SNP to even ask the people.

Again, you are ignoring the two referendums we have already had on these issues. More than 50% of voters voted for Brexit, that is where the mandate to leave the EU comes from. More than 50% of voters voted to remain in the UK, that is where the mandate to remain in the UK and not go the Indy route comes from. You can't just ignore these two votes just because they don't fit your agenda.

Herzlos

Not at all, I dont deny indy1 was a  narrow loss and brexit a narrower win.  I'm talking about the government majority where the Tories have a solid mandate on 34% but SNP are shakey on 45%.