May 2011 Election

[Ad Lib]

Hey, Ad Lib. What's the name of the election taking place on May 5th?

Scottish *Parliamentary* Elections.

Thus it's a non-sequitur for you to accuse Reynard of hypocrisy for claiming to dislike powerful *governments* whilst simultaneously belittling the Scottish *Parliament* for being too weak.

[Reynard]

So... you don't like powerful governments, but make fun of the Scottish Parliament because it has less power, and thus less voting appeal.

I would humbly submit that you are 1) a Unionist, 2) rattled, and 3) on the verge of tears.

I make fun of it because it's a bit shit. All the talent goes to Parliament, not Holyrood. What we have up there is vin ordinaire. The people know it, which is why they don't really care who is in power there.

Humble? You?

You're just another w****r lefty.

[Swampy]

I make fun of it because it's a bit shit. All the talent goes to Parliament, not Holyrood. What we have up there is vin ordinaire. The people know it, which is why they don't really care who is in power there.

Talent, not power?

Humble? You?

Aye.

You're just another w****r lefty.

You'll be waving your cane and shouting that at shadows in the nursing home in a few years, it's pretty funny

[Swampy]

Scottish *Parliamentary* Elections.

Right. And the executive branch in Scotland 90% comprises what?

Thus it's a non-sequitur for you to accuse Reynard of hypocrisy for claiming to dislike powerful *governments* whilst simultaneously belittling the Scottish *Parliament* for being too weak.

Your obscurantism isn't going to work because you're dealing with someone who understands the institutional structure of Scottish politics more than you do 8-)

[Ad Lib]

Right. And the executive branch in Scotland 90% comprises what?

Your obscurantism isn't going to work because you're dealing with someone who understands the institutional structure of Scottish politics more than you do

Oh I don't deny for a minute that the executive and legislature overlap quite substantially in this country, at pretty much all levels. I merely wished to point out that to be opposed to powerful government is not necessarily inconsistent with believing in a strong legislature. Indeed it is possible for the executive to derive from the legislature, but for the legislature to wield far greater power than the executive. This, as you should appreciate, is even more the case in Holyrood than it is in Westminster because of the electoral system and because of the electorate being split across a greater number of factions.

Thus if Reynard does not happen to be interested in this election because the Scottish *Parliament* is perceived to be weak, it does not necessarily follow that he is in favour of the Scottish Executive being more powerful.

[Reynard]

devolution gave us yet another set of politicians to help themselves to taxpayers money. That's why I don't want it. That's why I refuse to bother voting for it.

I CAN actually see the sense in full independence in that we can drop a tier of government. I'd like to see us out of the EU as well. That would leave us with whatever parliament we got after independence and, I assume, some form of local government? Unfortunately it would be ruled by the loony left up here, so f**k that.

[Swampy]

Oh I don't deny for a minute that the executive and legislature overlap quite substantially in this country, at pretty much all levels. I merely wished to point out that to be opposed to powerful government is not necessarily inconsistent with believing in a strong legislature.

In a parliamentary system the executive is based on the composition of the parliament. You're being your usual obscurantist self, as you always are when it comes to defending the unionist bloc or one of your unionist buddies. It was perfectly, abundantly clear what I meant - so clear that I see no need whatsoever to rephrase it.

Indeed it is possible for the executive to derive from the legislature, but for the legislature to wield far greater power than the executive.

1) The executive and the legislative are not formally 100% separate in a parliamentary system (compare with, say, American republicanism) so this is almost wholly irrelevant

2) Inasmuch as it's relevant at all, the members of the executive have both the bully pulpit and the general legislative initiative under the Scottish system

This, as you should appreciate, is even more the case in Holyrood than it is in Westminster because of the electoral system and because of the electorate being split across a greater number of factions.

Actually, I think it's because the cdu system has the Privy Council to contend with. The legislature in Westminster is pretty much window-dressing. Scotland's institutional structure, as opposed to its electoral system, makes for a far more equitable style of politics.

Thus if Reynard does not happen to be interested in this election because the Scottish *Parliament* is perceived to be weak, it does not necessarily follow that he is in favour of the Scottish Executive being more powerful.

The Parliamentary elections decide the composition of the executive you absolute fucking fruitloop.

[Swampy]

I'd like to see us out of the EU as well.

Not happening, get over it.

[Reynard]

Not happening, get over it.

Neither is your atheist utopia. You get over that.

[Ad Lib]

In a parliamentary system the executive is based on the composition of the parliament. You're being your usual obscurantist self, as you always are when it comes to defending the unionist bloc or one of your unionist buddies. It was perfectly, abundantly clear what I meant - so clear that I see no need whatsoever to rephrase it.

I'm not "defending" anyone or anything. I was merely highlighting that it does not necessarily follow that someone who dislikes powerful government must NECESSARILY be a hypocrite if they dislike weak legislatures. I was just trying to be pedantic, and to annoy you. Clearly it's worked.

1) The executive and the legislative are not formally 100% separate in a parliamentary system (compare with, say, American republicanism) so this is almost wholly irrelevant

2) Inasmuch as it's relevant at all, the members of the executive have both the bully pulpit and the general legislative initiative under the Scottish system

1. No one said they were.

2. And at what point did Reynard have a ringing endorsement for a powerful government in Scotland? For all you know, he may prefer a system in which the legislature has omni-competence (unlike a devolved chamber) but from which the executive is not drawn. Alternatively, or additionally, he might support a system with far greater protections against executive dominance of the legislature: with stronger scrutiny mechanisms at committee stage, reduced coercive powers (such as budgetary) with respect to interaction with local councils and higher voting thresholds for policy implementation. A stronger legislature but a weaker executive...

Actually, I think it's because the cdu system has the Privy Council to contend with. The legislature in Westminster is pretty much window-dressing. Scotland's institutional structure, as opposed to its electoral system, makes for a far more equitable style of politics.

A fair point. I think they're related, though. The electoral system is an inseparable part of the institutional structure.

The Parliamentary elections decide the composition of the executive you absolute fucking fruitloop.

Only true to a point except in instances of a party winning an outright majority.

[Swampy]

Neither is your atheist utopia. You get over that.

Actually the UK's very quickly joining Scandinavia in that regard. Lots of work still to do here in the USA though - you keep up the good work back home of putting people off goddism

[Swampy]

I'm not "defending" anyone or anything. I was merely highlighting that it does not necessarily follow that someone who dislikes powerful government must NECESSARILY be a hypocrite if they dislike weak legislatures. I was just trying to be pedantic, and to annoy you. Clearly it's worked.

Obscurantism does annoy me. Well done

1. No one said they were.

2. And at what point did Reynard have a ringing endorsement for a powerful government in Scotland? For all you know, he may prefer a system in which the legislature has omni-competence (unlike a devolved chamber) but from which the executive is not drawn. Alternatively, or additionally, he might support a system with far greater protections against executive dominance of the legislature: with stronger scrutiny mechanisms at committee stage, reduced coercive powers (such as budgetary) with respect to interaction with local councils and higher voting thresholds for policy implementation. A stronger legislature but a weaker executive...

For the part in bold... I never said he did. I thought he would, all things considered, quite approve of a governing structure with a clearly limited mandate and a more-often-than-not coalition-based composition. But because it's Scottish and not British he doesn't.

I don't think he's given any thought to these other systems, and I think you and he are talking on completely different levels, which is what happens when the cdu-ists start white knighting each other for no good reason.

A fair point. I think they're related, though. The electoral system is an inseparable part of the institutional structure.

Of course it is, very much so - but the Privy Council is much, much, much more decisive to the cdu model than our pseudo-PR is to the Holyrood model.

Only true to a point except in instances of a party winning an outright majority.

If a party wins an outright majority its executive is still drawn (almost entirely) from their serving MSPs... or am I missing something?

[Ad Lib]

Obscurantism does annoy me. Well done

For the part in bold... I never said he did. I thought he would, all things considered, quite approve of a governing structure with a clearly limited mandate and a more-often-than-not coalition-based composition. But because it's Scottish and not British he doesn't.

I don't think that's the reason at all. I suspect the real reason he doesn't like these elections because for a right-winger there isn't really that much of a choice.

I don't think he's given any thought to these other systems, and I think you and he are talking on completely different levels, which is what happens when the cdu-ists start white knighting each other for no good reason.

Wasn't White Knighting him. I wasn't doing anything to support his stance. Merely trying to annoy you by pointing out that the two stances weren't necessarily inconsistent, even though without considerable structural reform, they are in practice.

Of course it is, very much so - but the Privy Council is much, much, much more decisive to the cdu model than our pseudo-PR is to the Holyrood model.

Don't disagree, but both are as much down to historical context and the political culture it fabricates.

If a party wins an outright majority its executive is still drawn (almost entirely) from their serving MSPs... or am I missing something?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When an election is won outright, the executive is drawn entirely from one party, which then forms what we'd call the government. Where (as in most systems which use a proportional element) an election produces no overall majority it is not *really* the election that decides who governs. It's as much the personalities and deals that can be struck that determines that. Take a hypothetical example where Labour win 20-30 more seats than they did in the last election straight from the Tories. The Lib Dems could have formed a coalition with either party, but the one that they choose won't necessarily be dictated by the seat for seat distribution in the election. That was all I was trying to get across.

[jester]

I make fun of it because it's a bit shit. All the talent goes to Parliament, not Holyrood. What we have up there is vin ordinaire. The people know it, which is why they don't really care who is in power there.

Humble? You?

You're just another w****r lefty.

Why? They have virtually no responsibility up here.

[xbl]

If we can move away from hyper pedantry and the Unionist too wee, two wrongs arguments...

Truth about SNP puts Salmond leadership in a different light

...For four years of minority government the impression was given the SNP was uniquely united. It turns out that was all it was, an impression. The reality was rather different, as Professor Christopher Harvie, who is standing down as a Nationalist MSP, has revealed.

Prof Harvie has described how tensions led to opacity of strategy in what he describes, unflatteringly, as the Salmond regime. He lambasts the safety-first approach of the party's manifesto, saying it suggests internal division at the centre. He may couch his criticism in questions - for example asking if Mr Salmond continues to pursue independence only to pacify the SNP faithful - but the thrust of his critique is clear and is, Prof Harvie suggests, more widely shared within the party than the leadership might admit.

By lifting the veil just enough to provide valuable and timely insight, Prof Harvie has done Scotland a service. As the SNP leader could win a second term this revelation is important. It adds vital context to our view of Mr Salmond. If there is internal division in the SNP, and a questioning of Mr Salmond's leadership and policies, what does this say about his ex-Cathedra pronouncements, his autocratic actions and his manifesto pledges?...

Scotsman getting desperate?

[xbl]

Things missing from that article? Any quotes! I don't think there is a single quote in there...

So here is the original article:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Retiring-SNP-MSP-in-bitter.6759647.jp

[quoteALEX Salmond's final push to secure a second term as First Minister is hit today by a withering critique of his last four years in government by one of the party's former MSPs. In a new chapter to a book to be published next year, Professor Christopher Harvie questions whether the party's policy on independence has been kept simply to "pacify the SNP faithful" and says there are "internal divisions at the centre" over Mr Salmond's "safety-first" policy on secession.

]

Well this sounds serious...

And what did Professor Christopher Harvie have to say about this: http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scottish-news/2297-scotsman-newspaper.html

However Professor Harvie has hit back by accusing the newspaper of misinterpreting what he said.

In a letter sent to the Scotsman, Professor Harvie said: “Contrary to The Scotsman's front-page headline, your interpretation of my remarks is far adrift from reality.

“Alex Salmond is a great friend and confidant who has energised Scottish politics. I am unlikely ever to forget his first approach to me, 23 years ago, to do a broadcast: "We had the choice of Sean Connery or you. We chose you."

The professor questioned the newspaper's interpretation of his remarks and added: “Alex has always been approachable and tolerant, and I am glad to have had Holyrood and the SNP as a stage on which to voice my experience and opinions.

“Despite your equally imaginative assertions about how I feel, I am fully involved in securing a victory for the SNP in what has proved to be a remarkable campaign.

“Alex Salmond is a class act and the only real choice for Scotland's First Minister. Re-electing him will give Scotland's people a fighting chance in difficult times.”

Oh.

[Savage Henry]

Things missing from that article? Any quotes! I don't think there is a single quote in there...

So here is the original article:

http://thescotsman.s...tter.6759647.jp

Well this sounds serious...

And what did Professor Christopher Harvie have to say about this: http://www.newsnetsc...-newspaper.html

Oh.

That second piece you've quoted ought to end up in Private Eye's Order of the Brown Nose section. Cringeworthy stuff. A fighting chance in difficult times? What an utter cretin.

[Poet of the Macabre]

People actually going crazy over the "loony left"

[Reynard]

Why? They have virtually no responsibility up here.

What?

You think a budding politician would rather have the job of finance minister at Holyrood or be Chancelor of the Exchequer? If you don't understand that the Chancellor has all the power over the nations purse strings then you are a moron.

Alistair Darling had more power than the entire Holyrood parliament FFS.. I believe he is Scottish. As was his Prime Minister. So yeah, no responsibility there at all.

Fucking hell

[Dean Court]

Alistair Darling had more power than the entire Holyrood parliament FFS.. I believe he is Scottish. As was his Prime Minister. So yeah, no responsibility there at all.

Totally agree they were both completely irresponsible, but unlike you I don't put that down to their nationality, just the Liebour policies they pursued.