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

A_Medium_Size_Jock

zagubov wrote: »

That's a 2012 news article, isn't it? It's like reliving Groundhog day again and again.

Nonetheless it is an appropriate response to a statement: "Love the still repeated delusions about "Scotland's" banks etc. Almost like some still don't understand how private businesses work."

It remains none the less valid for the date and very clearly shows that the then First Minister clearly did not understand what Shakey describes as "how private businesses work".
Deny that though you may.

IveSeenTheLight

cogito wrote: »

I didn't say 'is'. I said 'was'.

You also said in the last few years and you recent realisation.
The reduction in Scottish MP's occurred in 2005 (12 years ago).

Hence why I asked the question.

Out of interest, do you believe in proportional representation?

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It is over represented.

The proportion of people to MP's is generally how constituencies are determined, there's less heads per MP in Scotland than in England. So English votes count less in Westminster.

There are Scottish 59 MP's at Westminster.
There are 650 overall.
This represents 9% of the house.
Last I looked, that was not far off the rough percentage of the UK

I've also read somewhere that there should be an MP per roughly 92,000 constituents, so it looks like Scotland is correctly represented, but that England may be entitled to more MP's.

So I would argue against your premise that Scotland are over represented, but could accept that England are under represented.

All that said, its surely a consideration over the density of the constituency as its surely far easier to represent a constituency in a smaller area than spread out to capture the electorate.

IveSeenTheLight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The majority of people I talk to now wish that they would just go. We really don't care anymore. You have sturgeon to thank for that, she has showed how little she cares for Scotland so if the glorious leader does not like that region of the UK why should the rest of us.

Living in Scotland, my perception is that she cares far more for Scotland than the unelected Theresa May, or her colleague Ruth Davidson.
Indeed, she believes very strongly in Scotland.

Maybe its a perception thing based on where you reside and what politics you are exposed to.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There are Scottish 59 MP's at Westminster.
There are 650 overall.
This represents 9% of the house.
Last I looked, that was not far off the rough percentage of the UK

I've also read somewhere that there should be an MP per roughly 92,000 constituents, so it looks like Scotland is correctly represented, but that England may be entitled to more MP's.

So I would argue against your premise that Scotland are over represented, but could accept that England are under represented.

All that said, its surely a consideration over the density of the constituency as its surely far easier to represent a constituency in a smaller area than spread out to capture the electorate.

That's the exact same as Scotland being over represented, not wanting to increase the number of MP's in Westminster (which is the aim of government) means Scotland is over represented right now and the numbers will be cut but remain over represented just less so.

Just to put the bold in perspective, that's like me saying black is not white, and you saying well white is not black in retort.

No one is disputing the difficulty of negotiating a dispersed constituency. However it's not as if communication is difficult these days is it?

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That's the exact same as Scotland being over represented, not wanting to increase the number of MP's in Westminster (which is the aim of government) means Scotland is over represented right now and the numbers will be cut but remain over represented just less so.

Just to put the bold in perspective, that's like me saying black is not white, and you saying well white is not black in retort.

No one is disputing the difficulty of negotiating a dispersed constituency. However it's not as if communication is difficult these days is it?

I would argue its different.

Scotland has fulfilled the criteria to ensure correct representation, but it would appear the issue is with England not having fulfilled the criteria.

You should not portray an issue with the representation levels with Scottish MP's when the issue appears the negligence of the English representation

elantan

It's kind of the same with Scotland gets free prescriptions free education etc ... instead of campaigning for England to get the same it's easier just to say we shouldn't have it


A race to the bottom in a way

IveSeenTheLight

elantan wrote: »

It's kind of the same with Scotland gets free prescriptions free education etc ... instead of campaigning for England to get the same it's easier just to say we shouldn't have it


A race to the bottom in a way

Its for each parliament to decide how the budget is spent.

Yes the Scottish government has opted to put the money into health and education, but there are other areas we are woefully short on.

The problem is cherry picking comparisons without understanding the full picture

IveSeenTheLight

elantan wrote: »

It's kind of the same with Scotland gets free prescriptions free education etc ... instead of campaigning for England to get the same it's easier just to say we shouldn't have it


A race to the bottom in a way

An analogy I was thinking of was in any sporting team game (lets pick football: -

The English Team only turn up with 9 players and no subs, while the Scottish team has the correct criteria of 11 first team players and subs.

The English team say it's unfair and that we should reduce the team playing to only 9 players and no subs.

cogito

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You also said in the last few years and you recent realisation.
The reduction in Scottish MP's occurred in 2005 (12 years ago).

Hence why I asked the question.

Out of interest, do you believe in proportional representation?

I do believe that my vote should have the same weight as everyone else's so that if it takes 50000 people to elect an MP in England, it should require 50000 people to elect an MP elsewhere in the UK.

I seem to recall a time when it took 18000 voters to elect an MP in the Western Isles but nearly four times as many to elect one in the Isle of Wight. An extreme example perhaps but logically, the Isle of Wight should have had four MPs instead of one.