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

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Charming. However, this is very enlightening as to your mindset.
I don't see the misrepresentation you are referring I am doing though.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Moving forward, I accept, the guidelines are subject to change.
that does not alter the current situation which we were debating.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Maybe.
What are the guidelines to be?
Only then can we determine over or under representation.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Sigh.
The number of Scottish MP's are in accordance with the current guidelines, so your premise of over representation is flawed and miskewed as a result of under representation of the remaining MP's

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Maybe the guidelines should be changed, but your premise is wrong as it currently stands and goes back to my point that: -

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.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

The simple solution is that the constituencies and MP's per population / electorate should be defined, which would help to achieve your perception of correct representation.

Sadly this will still be a flawed system and until there is a proportional representation else AMS as in Scotland, then the number of MP's per vote will always be incorrect

TrickyTree83

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

Yes, apparently Acts of Parliament (i.e. law) should not be allowed because they are disagreeable to the individual.

But guidelines that entrench Scottish over-representation (due to the Scottish electoral commission) cannot be changed, oh no!

It's laughable.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Charming. However, this is very enlightening as to your mindset.
I don't see the misrepresentation you are referring I am doing though.



Moving forward, I accept, the guidelines are subject to change.
that does not alter the current situation which we were debating.



Maybe.
What are the guidelines to be?
Only then can we determine over or under representation.



Sigh.
The number of Scottish MP's are in accordance with the current guidelines, so your premise of over representation is flawed and miskewed as a result of under representation of the remaining MP's



Maybe the guidelines should be changed, but your premise is wrong as it currently stands and goes back to my point that: -




The simple solution is that the constituencies and MP's per population / electorate should be defined, which would help to achieve your perception of correct representation.

Sadly this will still be a flawed system and until there is a proportional representation else AMS as in Scotland, then the number of MP's per vote will always be incorrect

I consider it to be a personal responsibility to read and learn before formulating a position on a topic. I rarely enter into a debate such as this without feeling I'm standing on solid ground for my position, because who wants to look like an idiot?

The guidelines are subject to change. Fantastic - progress.

I do not have a white paper authored by myself for you to consume on what the dispersion of Scottish voters should be, and thereby the number of constituencies that should exist in Scotland. I can only show you that there are too many, that has been the case historically (trending over the past century the number of Scottish MP's has continually dropped). England should not reduce nor increase (incl. increased cost) the number of MP's in order to redress the imbalance. It would be far easier, more logical and cost effective to alter the Scottish boundary guidelines and constituencies to reduce over representation in 8.3% of the population than to alter the constituencies for the overwhelming vast majority of the populace.

*****

The over representation as a metric, you know what a metric is I hope, has no relation to the guidelines. Just because the guidelines are enforced as stated does NOT mean there is not over representation but under representation as you are trying to claim.

*****

I feel you really need to take in the part outlined in asterisks. The rules of the constituency boundaries do not dictate who is over represented or who is under represented. There is a finite number of Westminster MP's, the way they are divided amongst the nations is currently skewed in favour of Scotland due to the guidelines on how those MP's should be distributed which bears no relation to the proportion of population, which is part of the problem.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

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

The thing is, any opposition party that voted against the opportunity of a GE, whether it was the correct timing or not would be committing political suicide.

It's therefore the governments prerogative and political manipulation to request a GE within the period of the fixed term if and when they smell blood

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, any opposition party that voted against the opportunity of a GE, whether it was the correct timing or not would be committing political suicide.

It's therefore the governments prerogative and political manipulation to request a GE within the period of the fixed term if and when they smell blood

The SNP are voting against it.

Interesting how you believe they are committing political suicide.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I consider it to be a personal responsibility to read and learn before formulating a position on a topic. I rarely enter into a debate such as this without feeling I'm standing on solid ground for my position, because who wants to look like an idiot?

The guidelines are subject to change. Fantastic - progress.

I do not have a white paper authored by myself for you to consume on what the dispersion of Scottish voters should be, and thereby the number of constituencies that should exist in Scotland. I can only show you that there are too many, that has been the case historically (trending over the past century the number of Scottish MP's has continually dropped). England should not reduce nor increase (incl. increased cost) the number of MP's in order to redress the imbalance. It would be far easier, more logical and cost effective to alter the Scottish boundary guidelines and constituencies to reduce over representation in 8.3% of the population than to alter the constituencies for the overwhelming vast majority of the populace.

*****

The over representation as a metric, you know what a metric is I hope, has no relation to the guidelines. Just because the guidelines are enforced as stated does NOT mean there is not over representation but under representation as you are trying to claim.

*****

I feel you really need to take in the part outlined in asterisks. The rules of the constituency boundaries do not dictate who is over represented or who is under represented. There is a finite number of Westminster MP's, the way they are divided amongst the nations is currently skewed in favour of Scotland due to the guidelines on how those MP's should be distributed which bears no relation to the proportion of population, which is part of the problem.

The thing is, I can agree and accept most if not all of the above post.

The other point is though is that I can accept that over representation of Scottish MP's or under representation of English MP's is merely stating the same result, its just your perception of what the root cause is.

I'm happy to concess that a revision of the guidelines could and possibly should reduce the Scottish MP's further.

I just can't accept that fulfilling the guidelines and representing as is laid out for all MP's can be construed negatively.

It should be the MP's / Parliaments requirements to fulfill the electorates needs.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing is, any opposition party that voted against the opportunity of a GE, whether it was the correct timing or not would be committing political suicide.
...

It's their choice though. Or would you prefer that they had no say in the matter whatsoever?

I'm sure those who have been in politics a long time will know that there is never an ideal time.

Holding a snap election in the same week the European parliament get to vote on the A50 negotiations, that would also be seen as bad timing.

Holding a snap election in the immediate run up to German elections could be considered unhelpful too.

Personally, I don't think much progress would have been made in the Brexit negotiations between now and June. I'm not even sure we have moved out of the posturing and positioning phase.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The SNP are voting against it.

Interesting how you believe they are committing political suicide.

Not that your averse to being wrong, but yet again you are
Again, not an insult, just an observation

The SNP are abstaining from the vote, not voting against it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39640394

SNP MPs will abstain in the House of Commons vote on whether there should be a snap general election, the party's leader at Westminster has confirmed.
Angus Robertson said his party believed in fixed-term parliaments, but would not stand in the way of an early election.

Speaking on the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Robertson accused the prime minister of putting her party before her country by holding a general election just two years after the last one.
He added: "We are supporters of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and that means that parliaments should go their term.
"But we are not going to stand in the way of the election because the election is going to happen.
"The Labour Party is going to vote with the Tories. We are not going to vote with the Tories, we are not going to make life easy for them, we are here to hold them to account."

As I've said before, I too believe in the fixed term parliaments.

I guess that its good that there is some opposition to this ludicrous change from following the fixed term parliament period.

From an SNP perspective, there is a risk here.
They currently have 56 of the 59 seats so there is a risk that there could be a few seats lost, albeit they will campaign for all seats


I guess thats the thing holding back Scotland is that they can only realistically target the 59 seats out of 650

sss555s

Then there's this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVxu6DbFlgc

There must have been a massive problem if she's willing to lose all credibility to everyone except the die hard Torys.

mayonnaise

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not that your averse to being wrong, but yet again you are
Again, not an insult, just an observation

The SNP are abstaining from the vote, not voting against it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39640394

Deary me...:)

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I consider it to be a personal responsibility to read and learn before formulating a position on a topic. I rarely enter into a debate such as this without feeling I'm standing on solid ground for my position, because who wants to look like an idiot?