1320Lichtie Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Last 18 general elections: 1945 Labour govt (Attlee) Labour majority: 146 Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143 NO CHANGE WITHOUT SCOTTISH MPS 1950 Labour govt (Attlee) Labour majority: 5 Without Scottish MPs: 2 NO CHANGE 1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden) Conservative majority: 17 Without Scottish MPs: 16 NO CHANGE 1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan) Conservative majority: 60 Without Scottish MPs: 61 NO CHANGE 1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home) Conservative majority: 100 Without Scottish MPs: 109 NO CHANGE 1964 Labour govt (Wilson) Labour majority: 4 Without Scottish MPs: -11 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1 (Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5) 1966 Labour govt (Wilson) Labour majority: 98 Without Scottish MPs: 77 NO CHANGE 1970 Conservative govt (Heath) Conservative majority: 30 Without Scottish MPs: 55 NO CHANGE 1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson) Labour majority: -33 Without Scottish MPs: -42 POSSIBLE CHANGE LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY (Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16) 1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan) Labour majority: 3 Without Scottish MPs: -8 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY (Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15) 1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher) Conservative majority: 43 Without Scottish MPs: 70 NO CHANGE 1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher) Conservative majority: 144 Without Scottish MPs: 174 NO CHANGE 1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major) Conservative majority: 102 Without Scottish MPs: 154 NO CHANGE 1992 Conservative govt (Major) Conservative majority: 21 Without Scottish MPs: 71 NO CHANGE 1997 Labour govt (Blair) Labour majority: 179 Without Scottish MPs: 139 NO CHANGE 2001 Labour govt (Blair) Labour majority: 167 Without Scottish MPs: 129 NO CHANGE 2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown) Labour majority: 66 Without Scottish MPs: 43 NO CHANGE 2010 Coalition govt (Cameron) Conservative majority: -38 Without Scottish MPs: 19 CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY So in summary we can see the following: - on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster. - on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldnt have had from the rest of the UK alone, although theyd still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality. - and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a rainbow alliance. - which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotlands representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change. http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/ Telt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Last 18 general elections: 1945 Labour govt (Attlee) ———————————— Labour majority: 146 Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143 NO CHANGE WITHOUT SCOTTISH MPS 1950 Labour govt (Attlee) ———————————— Labour majority: 5 Without Scottish MPs: 2 NO CHANGE 1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden) ——————————————————– Conservative majority: 17 Without Scottish MPs: 16 NO CHANGE 1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan) ——————————————————– Conservative majority: 60 Without Scottish MPs: 61 NO CHANGE 1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home) ———————————————————————— Conservative majority: 100 Without Scottish MPs: 109 NO CHANGE 1964 Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————— Labour majority: 4 Without Scottish MPs: -11 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1 (Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5) 1966 Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————— Labour majority: 98 Without Scottish MPs: 77 NO CHANGE 1970 Conservative govt (Heath) ——————————————– Conservative majority: 30 Without Scottish MPs: 55 NO CHANGE 1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————————— Labour majority: -33 Without Scottish MPs: -42 POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY (Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16) 1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan) —————————————————– Labour majority: 3 Without Scottish MPs: -8 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY (Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15) 1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher) ———————————————— Conservative majority: 43 Without Scottish MPs: 70 NO CHANGE 1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher) ———————————————— Conservative majority: 144 Without Scottish MPs: 174 NO CHANGE 1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major) —————————————————— Conservative majority: 102 Without Scottish MPs: 154 NO CHANGE 1992 Conservative govt (Major) ——————————————— Conservative majority: 21 Without Scottish MPs: 71 NO CHANGE 1997 Labour govt (Blair) ———————————– Labour majority: 179 Without Scottish MPs: 139 NO CHANGE 2001 Labour govt (Blair) ———————————– Labour majority: 167 Without Scottish MPs: 129 NO CHANGE 2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown) ——————————————– Labour majority: 66 Without Scottish MPs: 43 NO CHANGE 2010 Coalition govt (Cameron) —————————————— Conservative majority: -38 Without Scottish MPs: 19 CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY So in summary we can see the following: - on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster. - on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality. - and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a “rainbow alliance”. - which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotland’s representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change. http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/ sorry that looks like an absoloute clusterfuck to me . how much mps do you want a country that makes up below 20 percent of the population to actually have ? the fall of scottish mp numbers is probably closely connected to the obvious rise of msp's. anyway again how does this prove that scottish vote does not count ? i didnt ask for general election results , i asked you to explain how the scottish vote "disnae count " , sounds like some anti west minister propaganda nonsense tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 sorry that looks like an absoloute clusterfuck to me . how much mps do you want a country that makes up below 20 percent of the population to actually have ? the fall of scottish mp numbers is probably closely connected to the obvious rise of msp's. anyway again how does this prove that scottish vote does not count ? i didnt ask for general election results , i asked you to explain how the scottish vote "disnae count " , sounds like some anti west minister propaganda nonsense tbh. Oh. Dear. God. Really? Trying to get through to unionists is like trying to open a coconut with a plastic mallett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Thing is Scotland is only 10%ish of the population. It would be unrealistic to expect such a small area to majorly affect the result. Take any subset of the same size and I'd imagine you'd get very similar results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Thing is Scotland is only 10%ish of the population. It would be unrealistic to expect such a small area to majorly affect the result. Take any subset of the same size and I'd imagine you'd get very similar results. Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that we don't want the government that gets elected by the rest of the country. We can change that by actually having a fully equipped government of our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Scrapping trident Slimming down of the armed forces Oil Pension Fund (Norway's currently sits at $800 Billion and change) Shall I continue? An Oil Pension fund would increase the need for austerity in the next 5 years, surely? By definition it would divert funds from current spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that we don't want the government that gets elected by the rest of the country. We can change that by actually having a fully equipped government of our own. Well we "wanted" the governments of 1997-2010, so your point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Well we "wanted" the governments of 1997-2010, so your point is moot. We only got that because England agreed. We are subject to the whims and aspirations of the English electorate. A YES vote fixes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 An Oil Pension fund would increase the need for austerity in the next 5 years, surely? By definition it would divert funds from current spending? Funds that are not currently available to be spent. Therefore this is additional cash over and above what we currently spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 We only got that because England agreed. We are subject to the whims and aspirations of the English electorate. A YES vote fixes that. jesus wept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 We only got that because England agreed. We are subject to the whims and aspirations of the English electorate. A YES vote fixes that. Okay but let's see we do go Independent, then surely Glasgow will be "subject to the whims and aspirations" to the rest of Scotland's electorate. If that's the criteria for secession then you must favour power being distributed at very very low levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 An Oil Pension fund would increase the need for austerity in the next 5 years, surely? By definition it would divert funds from current spending? It's not an actual pension. It's excess money. Jesus. Anyone else getting a headache with the Unionists today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 jesus wept wow. what a salient point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Okay but let's see we do go Independent, then surely Glasgow will be "subject to the whims and aspirations" to the rest of Scotland's electorate. If that's the criteria for secession then you must favour power being distributed at very very low levels. And if we reverse your logic then your advocating a one world government. You therefore must be favouring a removal of powers from lower levels to only the highest levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 And if we reverse your logic then your advocating a one world government. You therefore must be favouring a removal of powers from lower levels to only the highest levels. Well no because bigger is only better if you have something to go against. I would say I support a stronger EU as the only way to compete with China and the USA, but anything more than European level would be pushing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Well no because bigger is only better if you have something to go against. I would say I support a stronger EU as the only way to compete with China and the USA, but anything more than European level would be pushing it. So you have arbitrarily placed a limit on how far you want power to be seceded upwards based on a perception of future economic competition. The devolution of national government is based on national borders. Further devolution to a local level would be fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 An Oil Pension fund would increase the need for austerity in the next 5 years, surely? By definition it would divert funds from current spending? I'm guessing no-one on this forum has a mortgage AND a savings account then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Keep our noses the f**k out!!! As has been said before, we vote them out, because we can, because in an indy Scotland, votes will matter! No. No, we won't. I want you to go and stand in the corner for several minutes and think long and hard about what you're doing here, young man. Keeping their noses out certainly worked for Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Keeping their noses out certainly worked for Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia.... Remind me which countries are currently treatening Scotland with military intervention? English politicians making vague threats dont count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 He is correct though. Probably but I doubt it was over the democratic deficit that a Unionist Scotland faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.