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

IveSeenTheLight

mrginge wrote: »

So you'll have it when the Scottish people (I.e not just the snp) actually want one

Its not just the SNP though.
The SNP are a minority government and the MSP's voted with a majority for Indy ref 2.

It's time therefore to allow the public to decide again with the difference being that no longer can the remainers use fear by stating that the only way to stay in the EU is to remain within the UK.

A huge fundamental positional change.

mrginge wrote: »

This is a uk GE election for us to hopefully get a strong uk government who can get on with things instead of being hampered by single issue protest groups.

This is a UK General Election manipulated to try and increase the Conservative majority and capitalise on Labours demise.

It is not for the good of the UK.
It's playing with politics and should not be allowed within the fixed term parliament.

Theresa May talks about timing and the correct timing for this would have been when David Cameron stood down, not now, not after she has played with the position for a year.

With Theresa May, what she says is not what she will follow through with.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I would have been happy to discuss the proposed reduction going forward once you had accepted under the current terms and guidelines, Scotland was correctly represented and England was under represented.

I'm glad you managed to "see the light" last night on this point

Why... why are you still going on like I got it wrong? It's not doing you any favours.

The number of MP's Scotland has right now is over-representing the Scottish people in Westminster.

The number of MP's in future will be reduced. The reduction will still result in over-representation of Scottish people in Westminster.

You suggested increasing the number of English MP's saying my suggestion to reduce the number Scottish MP's was wrong. My suggestion was not wrong, and was the only way to redress the situation in the circumstances of those 650 MP's being reduced to 600. If the guidelines need to be changed to do that, then that's what must happen but the over-representation still exists and increasing the number of English MP's whilst keeping the current representation of Scottish people is not possible given the upcoming reduction.

It's not a foreign language, I am typing in English.

mollycat

People here seem to think that even if the UK, (which includes Scotland), is faced with say, 5-10 years of a Conservative government.....

....this will in some way prompt everyone to vote for the uncertainty, loss of services, poverty and isolationism that would be the consequence of Independence.

Shows how little regard the pro-indy movement has for the intelligence of the scottish electorate!

norsefox

mollycat wrote: »

People here seem to think that even if the UK, (which includes Scotland), is faced with say, 5-10 years of a Conservative government.....

....this will in some way prompt everyone to vote for the uncertainty, loss of services, poverty and isolationism that would be the consequence of Independence.

Shows how little regard the pro-indy movement has for the intelligence of the scottish electorate!

Seems strange to refer to intelligence whilst making a nonsensical argument about complete, and largely baseless, subjective hypotheticals...

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why... why are you still going on like I got it wrong? It's not doing you any favours.

The number of MP's Scotland has right now is over-representing the Scottish people in Westminster.

I really don;t want to get into it again.
You accepted you understood my point last night.
Why are you backtracking now?

I understand and agree that your perception is that Scotland is over-represented which I have debated that they are represented in accordance with the political guidelines and is a result or under representation by English MP's

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The number of MP's in future will be reduced. The reduction will still result in over-representation of Scottish people in Westminster.

Ok, so moving forward to the re-organisation, what is the future guidelines for MP's with regards to electorate representation and geographical area?

Once that is understood, you can make an educated consideration whether Scotland is over-represented or England is under represented

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the guidelines need to be changed to do that, then that's what must happen but the over-representation still exists and increasing the number of English MP's whilst keeping the current representation of Scottish people is not possible given the upcoming reduction.

The bold coloured part is key.
At present, Scotland fulfilled the guideline requirements. Its not their issue that England chose / failed to represent the electorate in accordance with the guidelines.

Moving forward, what the guidelines are will be key to determine whether there is an over representation by Scotland or an under representation by England.

If Scotland are not adhering to the guidelines for representation, then and only then can I conceed that Scotland is over represented.

Until then, the facts still point to an under representation by English MP's.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's not a foreign language, I am typing in English.

Indeed as am I.
I can't think [strike](can't be arsed)[/strike] of a way to make it clearer, so I hope you understand and are not deliberately concealing your understanding for the point of mindless debating.

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

People here seem to think that even if the UK, (which includes Scotland), is faced with say, 5-10 years of a Conservative government.....

....this will in some way prompt everyone to vote for the uncertainty, loss of services, poverty and isolationism that would be the consequence of Independence.

Shows how little regard the pro-indy movement has for the intelligence of the scottish electorate!

Is this the same as the presumption that post Independence, there will only be and ever will be an SNP government.

Once Independence is achieved ALL parties in Scotland will be focused on delivering the bast options for Scotland and I'm sure the intelligent electorate will vote and they believe accordingly.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I really don;t want to get into it again.
You accepted you understood my point last night.
Why are you backtracking now?

I understand and agree that your perception is that Scotland is over-represented which I have debated that they are represented in accordance with the political guidelines and is a result or under representation by English MP's



Ok, so moving forward to the re-organisation, what is the future guidelines for MP's with regards to electorate representation and geographical area?

Once that is understood, you can make an educated consideration whether Scotland is over-represented or England is under represented



The bold coloured part is key.
At present, Scotland fulfilled the guideline requirements. Its not their issue that England chose / failed to represent the electorate in accordance with the guidelines.

Moving forward, what the guidelines are will be key to determine whether there is an over representation by Scotland or an under representation by England.

If Scotland are not adhering to the guidelines for representation, then and only then can I conceed that Scotland is over represented.

Until then, the facts still point to an under representation by English MP's.



Indeed as am I.
I can't think [strikethrough](can't be arsed)[/strikethrough] of a way to make it clearer, so I hope you understand and are not deliberately concealing your understanding for the point of mindless debating.

<Sigh>

...

When there are 600 MP's and Scotland is over represented, what's the solution? Changing the guidelines or increasing the number of MP's again?

The guidelines you look to as the cornerstone of your defence are a key part of the issue of over representation in Scotland. Complying with the guidelines does not make them correct, nor does it make the number of MP's in Scotland correct it shows that the guidelines need to change.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

<Sigh>

...

When there are 600 MP's and Scotland is over represented, what's the solution? Changing the guidelines or increasing the number of MP's again?

The guidelines you look to as the cornerstone of your defence are a key part of the issue of over representation in Scotland. Complying with the guidelines does not make them correct, nor does it make the number of MP's in Scotland correct it shows that the guidelines need to change.

Indeed sigh.

So your position is that complying with the guidelines over the number of MP's per population does not make it correct.

It sounds like your position is that whatever abject failure occurs by the representation of English MP's, Scottish MP's need to tow the line and follow that abject failure so it cannot be construed that they are over represented.

I've opened the door as far as I can for you.
I've defended the current representation under the guidelines and am open to the consideration of over representation consideration going forward if the guidelines can be established and verified.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So your position is that complying with the guidelines over the number of MP's per population does not make it correct.

Yes.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It sounds like your position is that whatever abject failure occurs by the representation of English MP's, Scottish MP's need to tow the line and follow that abject failure so it cannot be construed that they are over represented.

No, I've been quite clear. You're misrepresenting it to suit the argument you're trying to make, understandably so. After digging my heels in after so long I wouldn't want to concede and look like a berk either.

The guidelines are subject to change as you well know due to the review that took place in 2013 which suggested the boundary changes that will be implemented presumably at the election after next now.

In that world, there will be 600 MP's. Scottish voters will still have too many MP's, so the guidelines are wrong in the sense that they grant over representation to Scottish voters in Westminster and under representation of English voters in Westminster. (The only reason English voters are under represented is because of issues such as Scottish over representation)

That's nothing to do with the MP's themselves

Scottish MP's need to tow the line

Clearly that's not true as that's down to independent commissions to regulate.

It has been suggested in the past by academics that the Scottish electoral commission must diverge from applying the same guidelines as England due to the difference in population growth. Why? Because Scotland is over represented. Why? Because the guidelines you staunchly use to defend your position are applied uniformly and population density is not. Shakey's favourite John Curtice agrees with me, and also on the solution.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've opened the door as far as I can for you.
I've defended the current representation under the guidelines and am open to the consideration of over representation consideration going forward if the guidelines can be established and verified.

In bold, yes... yes you have, those which currently grant Scottish voters more MP's per vote than English voters, A.K.A over representation of Scottish voters in Westminster.

The guidelines should be changed to reduce the number of Scottish MP's (and probably Welsh and perhaps even Northern Irish I've not checked), so that n number of constituents in England is equitable to that of the other nations of the union.

There is no need to increase the number of MP's after having gone through the trouble of decreasing the size of Westminster overall. None. To find an equilibrium, other nations should reduce the number of MP's in Westminster until the balance is found.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...
This is a UK General Election manipulated to try and increase the Conservative majority and capitalise on Labours demise.

It is not for the good of the UK.
It's playing with politics and should not be allowed within the fixed term parliament.
...

Nothing to do with "should not be allowed". The rules allow for the UK parliament to debate and vote on this proposed GE, and those voting MPs include a fair chunk of SNP MPs.

If Labour and SNP and LibDems felt there was an unfair advantage being acquired, they have an opportunity to stop it.

Oh, and every party try and increase their political presence. It's not just the Conservatives. The LibDems will smell an opportunity to gain from Labour struggles too.