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

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

If the government were increasing the number of MP's you would be correct and the way to rectify the situation would have been to increase the number of English MP's.

But that's stupid and costs more.

So they're decreasing them, which is sensible and costs less, ergo... as I've said many times previously, Scotland is over represented. It's not a point of view - it's a fact demonstrable by the context that reality gives us.

In your suggestion and your reality we would need to increase the number of English MP's, that's not happening. So it's not "the English are under represented" at all.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

It's nothing like that in the context of reality.

IveSeenTheLight

cogito wrote: »

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.

It is an extreme example and one of 4 islands that are exempt for their rules as a result of population in the landbase.

The rules are set for population and area so get on with it instead of blaming the Scottish MP's

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's nothing like that in the context of reality.

I've shown the reality and how the Scottish MP allocation is within the rules.
I've also ceded that there should be more English MP's.

Stop saying Scotland should have less, when the root cause of your argument is that there should be more English MP's

Don't blame the Scots for fulfilling our allocation in accordance with the rules

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the government were increasing the number of MP's you would be correct and the way to rectify the situation would have been to increase the number of English MP's.

But that's stupid and costs more.

So they're decreasing them, which is sensible and costs less, ergo... as I've said many times previously, Scotland is over represented. It's not a point of view - it's a fact demonstrable by the context that reality gives us.

In your suggestion and your reality we would need to increase the number of English MP's, that's not happening. So it's not "the English are under represented" at all.

Its been shown that the allocation of MP's per populous and per land mass. Those are the facts and Scottish MP's fall within that remit.

Are you now advocating a change in the rules to suit your desires?

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've shown the reality and how the Scottish MP allocation is within the rules.
I've also ceded that there should be more English MP's.

Stop saying Scotland should have less, when the root cause of your argument is that there should be more English MP's

Don't blame the Scots for fulfilling our allocation in accordance with the rules

Think whatever you like, you're quite obviously wrong and trying to tell me and others by reading your reply that up is down.

I don't care.

Scotland is over represented, and will remain so even when the number of MP's is reduced to 600. The Scottish electorate does and will have more MP's per vote, a higher ratio of MP's per vote in Westminster. Saying the English should increase their number of MP's to compensate does not change that fact and completely ignores the reality of what is actually happening to the overall number of MP's.

We're done. If you can't debate sensibly and stick to the facts then I can't be bothered, I already deal with others warped perceptions, I don't think I can deal with another.

IveSeenTheLight

cogito wrote: »

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'm in agreement.

I've stated before that there is context that there should be an MP per circa 92,000 population.

In Scotland we have a population of circa 5.4 million, which means 58.69 MP's to fulfill the criteria.

We meet that.

I suggest you lobby your own MP to argue they should be representing fewer constituents in order to weight your vote per population.

All that said and done, you would still not get a fair representation of your vote until proportional representation was the election system in the UK.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Think whatever you like, you're quite obviously wrong and trying to tell me and others by reading your reply that up is down.

I don't care.

Scotland is over represented, and will remain so even when the number of MP's is reduced to 600. The Scottish electorate does and will have more MP's per vote, a higher ratio of MP's per vote in Westminster. Saying the English should increase their number of MP's to compensate does not change that fact and completely ignores the reality of what is actually happening to the overall number of MP's.

We're done. If you can't debate sensibly and stick to the facts then I can't be bothered, I already deal with others warped perceptions, I don't think I can deal with another.

Read your post again.
I am stating facts which you are unable to refute, thus are sticking with your erroneous mantra.

Stop blaming others incorrectly who are representing the electorate in accordance with the guidelines set in parliament

Conrad

What do Scots think of Indyref 2 - this is great, watch it to the end;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoNtAU4xKg8

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Read your post again.
I am stating facts which you are unable to refute, thus are sticking with your erroneous mantra.

Stop blaming others incorrectly who are representing the electorate in accordance with the guidelines set in parliament

Sure you are.

You've backtracked to the point where you're using the guidelines which have been redrawn as a result of the review in 2013 as a backstop to your argument. All that proves is that I'm right in that Scotland is over represented and the rules have changed to reflect that as well as reduce the overall number of MP's in Westminster. But still after the redrawing of constituency borders Scottish votes will still be over represented at Westminster.

Total Electorate = 46,499,537
Scottish Electorate = 3,988,492

Scottish Percentage = 8.57%

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/provisional-electorate-figures-published-ahead-of-the-eu-referendum

Total MP's = 650
Scottish MP's = 59

Scottish representation % = 9.07%

After the redrawing of constituency borders:

Total MP's = 600
Scottish MP's = 53

Scottish representation % = 8.83%

Exactly as I've been saying all along.

The End.

Edit: I can see you'll want to criticise the use of the EU referendum electorate figures, before you do have a think about the date and who exactly was eligible and why, and note that the comparable numbers from the 2015 GE are lower.