Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[H_B]

The democratic deficit, such as it exists is about the fact that there is never enough Scottish votes to influence an election.

Again, you are insinuating Scotland is a block vote. It isn't.

"Scottish" votes are no different from "Yorkshire" votes.

[joozy]

Scots may have done well out of the Union, Scotland less so. The perception that a prime minister being Scottish has a tangible benefit for Scotland is false. The democratic deficit, such as it exists is about the fact that there is never enough Scottish votes to influence an election. Now, call me cynical, but my view is that democracy only works when there is acountability from the legislature to the electorate. That means (as Tony Benn would say) being able to get rid of them, but also having a real say in electing them. In Scotland, one major party has giving up on trying to court Scottish votes, so out of tune with the wider Scottish electorate are they, the other can afford to take the place for granted - in addition, neither side needs Scottish votes to win a majority (look it up, only twice in eighteen post war elections have Scottish votes changed a result!) as such neither side needs to court the Scottish electorate, neither side needs to create policies that are targetted at Scots (and you might say, with onyl 10% of the population,why should they?) so the Scots really don't get decent representation, irrespective of whether a Scot holds one of the 'great offices of state'.

Now, with the majority of population and capital, England must dominate the legislature to the point where we have reached, that Scotland has no real say in how things are run. That's only right, based on the political processes in place. It's just that it doesn't that we should be happy about it or find another way where Scotland can have a alrge say in how it runs it's own affairs.

I simply don't agree that there is a democratic deficit affecting Scotland. Many of your complaints reflect the nature of the first past the post political system rather than any inherent bias against Scotland. Indeed with the powers the Holyrood government can wield, I would argue that Scotland has more powers over its own affairs than any other region of the UK.

If you were to take any other region of the UK (whether it's the North-East, Greater London etc), I'd be interested to know how often their results would have been the swing factor in UK general election.

[renton]

1) Then, with the greatest of respect, why the f**k did you respond to BerwickMad and I pointing out to oaksoft and Confidemus that a No vote was not a "vote of no confidence in ourselves to govern our own affairs" by criticising what was being said?

2)This is just nonsense. Again, I refer you to the European Union, where our voting power is a tiny fraction in the Parliament and Council of that that Scottish representatives have at Westminster. The power there isn't "not pooled" just because certain groups have greater influence in the exercise of the pooled power. The point is our right to withdraw it is still recognised should we choose to exercise it, and it is a judgment for the people to decide who they would rather is the "we" in decision-making for certain purposes. The mere fact of existence of Scotland as a political community isn't sufficient for us to say that it should be the default political community or that it is necessarily the level of decision-making that best protects what the political communities in Scotland value.

3) Yes you did. You presented the conception of political community as binary. Either Scotland was to be some sort of supreme political community which should exercise sovereignty over everything, or it was just a region that could be extinguished (whatever the f**k that's supposed to mean). You totally rejected by necessary inference the possibility that there could be people in Scotland who feel as though they have multiple political identities and that therefore they prefer, in certain instances, decisions about certain matters of public policy, to be taken as part of a larger whole than Scotland on its own. This doesn't imply that they think Scotland can't make these decisions or that it should have "someone else" make them for them; simply that they think it is objectively preferable for it to share this decision-making.

4)Several questions:

a)1. Why should all nations be conceptually equal?

b)2. Why do you assume that Britishness is necessarily "more important" rather than that some people conceive that what it MEANS to be Scottish is to be part of a British project?

Sorry, but this is absolute horseshit. Scottishness isn't some nice little optional extra to Britishness, nor can you tell people who feel both that that has to be the case. There are many people who see Britishness as a synthesis of national identities and political communities, not some sort of detachable bolt-on. If you don't feel that, no one is forcing you to feel that, but you shouldn't deny other people the ability to self-define in that way. It's not "hierarchy"; it's the essence of who they are.

old browser, so apologies for the non broken up quotes:

1) I said that I thought it crazy that people would be happy with a system where their voice was incidental to how that system was run. not that they were incapable, merely that they enabled a system which sidelined them. No more, no less.

2) Again, I'm not an uncritical proponent of the EU as it exists today, I do recognise that it enacts policies, and that an individual nation has limited soveriegnty but also that generally, it seeks not to dominate domestic or foreign policy over it's sovereign states as the UK does over Scotland.

3) And I'll adress your last point here. I present the argument as follows - you can have multiple political identities, but there ultimately are hiearchical demands for these. I am a Fifer, a Scot, a Brit by passport and a European. The first and last of these are for me, goegraphical, rather than national affiliations. There is a degree to which the argument must be seen in terms of the relevent political units we are subject to. The British union is an incorporating one, by it's very nature it sets itself above being Scottish or indeed English, it denies those identifications in a way that a looser, federal union might not. So when folk are both 'Scottish and British' in terms of a political Union that holds all the important sovereignty, it's impossible for me not to think of people who take that stance holding the latter over the former. It's my judgement that the British Union does not seek to 'pool resources' it is a top down Union, not bottom up. It doesn't seek to let folk have control of their resources and then letting them put those resources into a common pot, as say the EU does or the federal structure of Germany does. The British identity to me then, seeks to stifle the Scottish or English (or Welsh or Irish) component of people's political identities.

4) a) Why shouldn't they?

b) I don't, I merely conjecture that this could be the case for people. It is of course coloured by my own prejudices that the idea of a sharing, open British 'project' to be quite laughable in any case.

[renton]

I simply don't agree that there is a democratic deficit affecting Scotland. Many of your complaints reflect the nature of the first past the post political system rather than any inherent bias against Scotland. Indeed with the powers the Holyrood government can wield, I would argue that Scotland has more powers over its own affairs than any other region of the UK.

If you were to take any other region of the UK (whether it's the North-East, Greater London etc), I'd be interested to know how often their results would have been the swing factor in UK general election.

Again, I've never insinuated that regions of England don't do badly out of the FPTP system. It's also a true fact that some of these regions were offered a form of assembly similar to Scotland and Wales but rejected these, we can conjecture as to their reasons why, but ultimately it's their problem. There is a democratic deficit, it does affect Scotland as it affects certain regions of England, I accept that independence is only a solution for Scotland to some degree, but then meaningful reform of the British system is dead, and if the English regions want better representation then they should agitate for more devovled power.

[H_B]

old browser, so apologies for the non broken up quotes:

1) I said that I thought it crazy that people would be happy with a system where their voice was incidental to how that system was run. not that they were incapable, merely that they enabled a system which sidelined them. No more, no less.

This has been done before, but as one of 3 million Scottish voters, what say do I have in how things are run at Holyrood?

[renton]

Again, you are insinuating Scotland is a block vote. It isn't.

"Scottish" votes are no different from "Yorkshire" votes.

Again, if Scotland is merely a geograhpical region then you are entirely correct. If Scotland is a distinct nation then it colours the argument differently.

[H_B]

Again, if Scotland is merely a geograhpical region then you are entirely correct. If Scotland is a distinct nation then it colours the argument differently.

No it doesn't. What difference is there between "Scotland" and "Yorkshire" in this regard.

It's a collection of individuals in a region, with wildly disparate political views.

[renton]

This has been done before, but as one of 3 million Scottish voters, what say do I have in how things are run at Holyrood?

You have the same democratic mechanisms as others do. Holyrood represents a much more localised democracy, with smaller, less 'safe' seats. If there are other ways of improving it, then by all means put those forward, there is a vote in September that at least gives us the option of further remoulding how we do things. It's a damnsight more responsive than the Westminster scottish seats.

[renton]

No it doesn't. What difference is there between "Scotland" and "Yorkshire" in this regard.

It's a collection of individuals in a region, with wildly disparate political views.

A shared collective history. All nation states are ultimately nothing more than individuals inhabiting geogrpahical regions, but such a mechanistic outlook ignores the real, emotional and probably quite irrational bonds that these individuals form.

[H_B]

You have the same democratic mechanisms as others do.

That's right. Which is also true of the UK.

Holyrood represents a much more localised democracy, with smaller, less 'safe' seats.

With exactly the same outcome. I may or may not have voted for "the winner". Less than half of those who bothered to vote voted for the SNP in 2011.

[joozy]

Again, I've never insinuated that regions of England don't do badly out of the FPTP system. It's also a true fact that some of these regions were offered a form of assembly similar to Scotland and Wales but rejected these, we can conjecture as to their reasons why, but ultimately it's their problem. There is a democratic deficit, it does affect Scotland as it affects certain regions of England, I accept that independence is only a solution for Scotland to some degree, but then meaningful reform of the British system is dead, and if the English regions want better representation then they should agitate for more devovled power.

There is no democratic deficit - I acknowledge it has become something of a political mantra for the yes campaign to argue that there is but that doesn't mean it should just be swallowed blindly.

Scotland is not underrepresented in parliament. Indeed the average Scottish MP represents fewer people than his/her English counterpart. Scotland has its own parliament, which has control over a wide range of areas. Scottish MP's can vote on policies in England and Wales that have no effect on Scotland - this is arguably an area where there is a far greater democratic deficit.

The same argument about Scotland influencing the eventual government could be made about any region.

[H_B]

A shared collective history. All nation states are ultimately nothing more than individuals inhabiting geogrpahical regions, but such a mechanistic outlook ignores the real, emotional and probably quite irrational bonds that these individuals form.

Right. Except for many of us we have no more "bonds" with someone from Arbroath than we do with someone from Southampton.

I have nothing in common with a fisherman from Arbroath, other than that we were born in the same little bit of land.

[renton]

That's right. Which is also true of the UK.

With exactly the same outcome. I may or may not have voted for "the winner". Less than half of those who bothered to vote voted for the SNP in 2011.

When the SNP managed to break the electoral system but good. largely though, Scottish governments are governed by coalition and even if you don't vote for the winner, you can be sure that you rvote did contribute to the overall balance of the legislature. Under the Westminster model it doesn't acutally matter what Scotland votes for, it get's what England wants.

[renton]

Right. Except for many of us we have no more "bonds" with someone from Arbroath than we do with someone from Southampton.

I have nothing in common with a fisherman from Arbroath, other than that we were born in the same little bit of land.

Well you don't know until you talk to him I guess.

[H_B]

Well you don't know until you talk to him I guess.

Exactly. That's also true of someone from Southampton.

Do you genuinely feel more of an affinity to an unknown person from Arbroath than you do to an unknown person from Southampton, by virtue of the fact they come from Arbroath?

[renton]

There is no democratic deficit - I acknowledge it has become something of a political mantra for the yes campaign to argue that there is but that doesn't mean it should just be swallowed blindly.

Scotland is not underrepresented in parliament. Indeed the average Scottish MP represents fewer people than his/her English counterpart. Scotland has its own parliament, which has control over a wide range of areas. Scottish MP's can vote on policies in England and Wales that have no effect on Scotland - this is arguably an area where there is a far greater democratic deficit.

The same argument about Scotland influencing the eventual government could be made about any region.

Except the stuff that involves how much money is spent on what, who we are going to war with and how we treat the most vulnerable in society.

Even a lot of policies that involve devolved powers include voting on how much noney is being spent, which knocks on to Barnett, and therefore what money ScotGov gets to spend.

and yeah, there is actually an over representation of Scottish MPs by population head, but still, ultimately what scotland votes for doesn't count, that's simply the political reality, far removed from abstract consitutional questions. We get our government acoridng to what England votes for.

[renton]

Exactly. That's also true of someone from Southampton.

Do you genuinely feel more of an affinity to an unknown person from Arbroath than you do to an unknown person from Southampton, by virtue of the fact they come from Arbroath?

I think their are distinct shared cultural markers that mean I will have things in common with our hypothetical lichtie (let's call him patient Xbl). It doesn't mean I won't have things in common with the lad from Southampton, or the guy from Dortmund, or the family in Groningen.

[H_B]

I think their are distinct shared cultural markers that mean I will have things in common with our hypothetical lichtie (let's call him patient Xbl). It doesn't mean I won't have things in common with the lad from Southampton

Such as?

I can't think of one shared cultural marker that I have in common with a fisherman from Arbroath. I went to Forfar once and barely recognised the language being spoken as English. .

[1320Lichtie]

Such as?

I can't think of one shared cultural marker that I have in common with a fisherman from Arbroath. I went to Forfar once and barely recognised the language being spoken as English. .

I have more in common with someone from Glasgow than I do than say someone from Southampton, we are both Scottish.

And there is about 40 fisherman in Arbroath these days, how stereotypical, im appalled

Edited March 25, 2014 by 1320Lichtie

[1320Lichtie]

Such as?

I can't think of one shared cultural marker that I have in common with a fisherman from Arbroath. I went to Forfar once and barely recognised the language being spoken as English. .

And are you sure about that aye? That dead tricky Forfar accent that no one can pick up eh.........