Scottish Independence

[Blaven]

But the Labour Party doesn't have a eurosceptic split anymore, certainly not to the same degree as the Tories.

An EU referendum would be pretty one sided i think - it would unite business and the social priogressives - People may not be wild about Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Sal;mond but they would all be on one side of the argument, with Farage and Griffin on the other.

Its not about them tho. Its about the EU and how people feel about it and imigration. The electorate in RUK are not too keen on staying part of it.

Its the same as our referendum. Only the SNP and Greens back it, but people who dont vote for them, WILL vote for indepedence.

[banterman86]

Its not about them tho. Its about the EU and how people feel about it and imigration. The electorate in RUK are not too keen on staying part of it.

.

But the EU is more than "immigration". In any case,

What evidence is there that people want out of the EU?

[Blaven]

But the EU is more than "immigration". In any case,

What evidence is there that people want out of the EU?

None what so ever. Duh.

Do you think that ukip can change immigration policy control in Europe?

No.

So they will all just resign and go back to their weekend jobs?

Naw.

IN or OUT.

Need to wakeup to this.

[H_B]

it can be argued that in thre Holyrood system, with smaller constituencies and a different voting system that each vote matters a lot more and that the people of Falkirk certianly have more say in how Scotland is run than they do in how the UK is run, or indeed more say than Scotland as a whole doe sin how the UK is run.

Is it fair to the people of Shetland that they elect a LD representative and they get an SNP government.

Yes or No?

[banterman86]

None what so ever. Duh.

Do you think that ukip can change immigration policy control in Europe?

No.

So they will all just resign and go back to their weekend jobs?

Naw.

IN or OUT.

Need to wakeup to this.

let's try that again - what evidence is there that people wnat out of the EU?

[H_B]

I disagree on your first point: The holyrood system affords a more democratic system than Westminster and at least the Sheltand MSP is closer to his constituents - also, given the usual coalition nature of Holyrood you can argue that those Sheltand votes will still be important in defining who is in charge at the end of it all.

So your point is about the voting system then?

In which case I agree. FPTP is not the most democratic way of electing a government.

[strichener]

There is no democratic deficit. Scotland, if anything, is overrepresented in Westminster - just take a look at the number of MP's per million heads. Whether you like it or not, Scotland only represents c. 10% of the UK - a number not too dissimilar to Yorkshire or other regions within the UK. You'd be as well asking how often the Welsh, Yorkshire, Northern Irish, Home Counties, London vote has in isolation affected the overall outcome.

As it happens, from 1997 to 2010 the government in power was the most popular party in Scotland. From 2010 to the present day, Scottish votes prevented a majority Conservative government.

Shite argument to make though. Based on population every country is under-represented when compared to Wales. England is over-represented when compared to NI. The proposed reforms to the number of MPs would also as near as damn make this a non-issue but the boundary review was rejected by all the parties bar the tories.

[Ad Lib]

Why should countries "get the governments they vote for" but regions shouldn't? What is special about countries?

The South East of England has voted overwhelmingly Tory even during Blair's landslides, yet they have been lumbered with 30 years of Labour Government and a LibCon Coalition against their will in the last 4.

The North of England has consistently voted Labour since WWII, yet it has been lumbered with 34 years of Tory government and 4 years of LibCon coalition.

Their voices are no more determinative of UK elections than Scotland's. They no more frequently get a government composed of the party to whom they gave the most seats than Scotland does.

To say that "Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for" is to miss the whole point of representative democracy. We pull together communities with very different political perspectives all the time in the creation of a state. There is nothing special about the community of Scotland either internally or externally. It is a divided country with diverse voting behaviour. Even at Holyrood, the majority of Scots voted for parties other than the SNP, yet the SNP get to control the whole agenda, because of an electoral system that isn't fully proportional. Minority communities have negligible influence on Scottish elections, with the key battlegrounds being the industrial towns and cities of the central belt. Whether it's the Borders, or the Northern Isles, or even the Highlands, they have no real influence on the agenda set at Holyrood in any meaningful sense.

The whole point of the independence question is whether we should continue to work together as one community on the things about which we disagree. Complaining that Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for presupposes the answer to the question.

[Blaven]

let's try that again - what evidence is there that people wnat out of the EU?

Libdums. "we want to stay in Europe" 1 EMP.

Labour. "if EU take more powers, In - Out referendum". 20 EMPs

Torys. "In - out referendum" 19 EMPs

Ukip. "out of europe" 24 EMPs.

What more do you need?

[Mr Bairn]

An in - out referendum is just democracy. If the clown collective wanted to bang on about a referendum on independence, then it's hypocritical to not support a referendum on Europe.

However the "in" side will probably win the referendum.

[banterman86]

Libdums. "we want to stay in Europe" 1 EMP.

Labour. "if EU take more powers, In - Out referendum". 20 EMPs

Torys. "In - out referendum" 19 EMPs

Ukip. "out of europe" 24 EMPs.

What more do you need?

Was the 2011 Scottish Election a referendum on independence?

[strichener]

Orkney/Shetland/Na h-Eileanan an Iar are the most over-represented constituencies in Scotland. Giving one MSP in total for these scottish outposts would still lead to them having greater representation than the majority of the existing constituencies.

ETA: With Na h-Eileanan an Iar with it's MSP, MP and the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar council they must have an elected offiical for damn near every house.

[Confidemus]

Fucking hell, HB and Banterman ask more questions than a 3 year old on a sugar rush.

[milton75]

Just to check renton, is there a democratic deficit for the people of Yorkshire?

They didn't elect a Conservative/Lib Dem government.

Potentially, but whether fairly or not, there also isn't a democratic context in which the people of that area can secede. In Scotland we operate within that context, and can address the question.

I certainly sympathise for Yorkshire, but it's not really an issue we have power over, so to suggest it should be considered as being a similar paradigm to Scotland, where we now are able to make "constitutional" changes, is disingenuous whataboutery at best.

Is it fair to the people of Shetland that they elect a LD representative and they get an SNP government.

Yes or No?

Again, not the same thing. Should any region of the UK wish to push for federalism or indeed secession, I would support their right to do so. In the case of Shetland, despite numerous amusing attempts in the likes of the Daily Mail to suggest that there is a burning desire to avoid being part of an independent Scotland, actual polls have shown that only 5-12% of residents would be in favour of the question even being formally addressed. Not really a parallel then.

By the way, you never answered my question the other day:

I'm not a British nationalist. I find Nationalists of all varieties dreadful.

To pick an example off the top of my head, what's so dreadful about Tibetans that want freedom from China?

[banterman86]

Fucking hell, HB and Banterman ask more questions than a 3 year old on a sugar rush.

Can you prove this? be specific

it;s a fair point - no one thinks the 2011 electiosn represented that scotland would vote Yes this year, so I think saying the rise of Ukip means the Uk will vote to leave the EU is wrong.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

It's not a case of it being wildly "unfair".

It's a case of us being a wealthy country, with a great deal of exisiting state infrastructure, who quite clearly has a different political outlook (as proved on Sunday) and has a chance to make something better for ourselves.

If the people of Northern England want to get the devolution thing going on again; actually take it this time; get their heads together and make their part of the world an economically viable state instead of a subsidised shitehole and elect a government with a referendum mandate; then I'd highly recommend they vote for Independence. Westminster didn't show them much much post-industrial loyalty, so if they get their acts together, they should leave it.

I can't let "but what about Newcastle!!!111" Scots cringe stop me seeing things changed whilst I'm still alive.

[milton75]

Why should countries "get the governments they vote for" but regions shouldn't? What is special about countries?

The South East of England has voted overwhelmingly Tory even during Blair's landslides, yet they have been lumbered with 30 years of Labour Government and a LibCon Coalition against their will in the last 4.

The North of England has consistently voted Labour since WWII, yet it has been lumbered with 34 years of Tory government and 4 years of LibCon coalition.

Their voices are no more determinative of UK elections than Scotland's. They no more frequently get a government composed of the party to whom they gave the most seats than Scotland does.

To say that "Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for" is to miss the whole point of representative democracy. We pull together communities with very different political perspectives all the time in the creation of a state. There is nothing special about the community of Scotland either internally or externally. It is a divided country with diverse voting behaviour. Even at Holyrood, the majority of Scots voted for parties other than the SNP, yet the SNP get to control the whole agenda, because of an electoral system that isn't fully proportional. Minority communities have negligible influence on Scottish elections, with the key battlegrounds being the industrial towns and cities of the central belt. Whether it's the Borders, or the Northern Isles, or even the Highlands, they have no real influence on the agenda set at Holyrood in any meaningful sense.

The whole point of the independence question is whether we should continue to work together as one community on the things about which we disagree. Complaining that Scotland doesn't get the government it votes for presupposes the answer to the question.

What's "special" about countries, at least in this instance, is that they provide a recognised context in which issues like federalism and secession are tackled. That's not to say that there's any reason that the same principle shouldn't apply to a region or city, but you would have to establish a framework in which the process would occur.

We have that in Scotland, we don't in the South-East of England. It may not be fair, but it's the way it is and not an argument against Scotland exercising the rights proposed by the Scottish Parliament and agreed to by Westminster.

If you want to push for a federalised and eventually independent SE England, no-one is stopping you. Get a groundswell of opinion there backing you and march on Parliament.

[banterman86]

If the people of Northern England want to get the devolution thing going on again; actually take it this time; get their heads together and make their part of the world an economically viable state instead of a subsidised shitehole and elect a government with a referendum mandate; then I'd highly recommend they vote for Independence. Westminster didn't show them much much post-industrial loyalty, so if they get their acts together, they should leave it.

I don't really get the "well the North East rejected an assembly" line - people would still be campaigning for independence here, i don;t see what difference it makes.

[BigBadSaint]

I see BBC's take on this mornings story - Scottish independence: Rivals both say Scots 'better off with us'

Has now closed it's comments section after thousands of upvotes for dozen upon dozen of comments basically asking why an impartial BBC has buried the one FACT in their Report

.... that the LSE Professor who's research the Treasury's figures are based on has come out and said that the UK Government has grossly misrepresented his research to the tune of 10-12 x as much as he reckons it would actually cost.

Good to see a fair impartial media eh ?

[Ad Lib]

What's "special" about countries, at least in this instance, is that they provide a recognised context in which issues like federalism and secession are tackled. That's not to say that there's any reason that the same principle shouldn't apply to a region or city, but you would have to establish a framework in which the process would occur.

We have that in Scotland, we don't in the South-East of England. It may not be fair, but it's the way it is and not an argument against Scotland exercising the rights proposed by the Scottish Parliament and agreed to by Westminster.

If you want to push for a federalised and eventually independent SE England, no-one is stopping you. Get a groundswell of opinion there backing you and march on Parliament.

See, I sympathise with the "it's what we've got and there is inertia to proper change" thing but that's not really the point. The point is that in all democracies you sacrifice minority community influence. This isn't necessarily a bad thing: it is often conducive towards resolving conflicting positions between different communities. When people present this "getting the government you vote for" thing, they are misunderstanding what it means to vote for a government in the first place. They aren't engaging with the fundamental question about political community. They are just asserting that one of them takes primacy in all situations.

Which then poses problems conceptually when they are also (correctly) in favour of the European Union, where how Scotland votes has virtually no effect on the overall composition of the Parliament whatsoever.