Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[Peppino Impastato]

Not all Unionists are British nationalists. You can't tell, or won't admit to knowing, the difference.

Yes they are, by definition. Couldn't possibly be anything else.

[Wee Willie]

f**k sake, this exact same conversation has been going on for nearly 2 years now. It's worse than Libby's guff.

I strongly and emphatically disagree.

Fide is the new Fuzzy Afro, probably the same poster. 

 

In one of my posts I said that in western movies the redskin would say, "whiteman speak with forked tongue".

Ad Lib called me out on that saying it was racist.

Fuzzy Afro is that no racist?

[renton]

Looks good to me. They've got my vote.

Are the greens in contention for any constituency seats?

 

I think Harvie is standing in Glasgow Kelvin.

[Bishop Briggs]

moving the goalposts now eh, we're talking about countries not individuals. Your country chooses it's own government, ours doesn't. But since it was you that raised it about East Lothian you give it a go. Bearing in mind their entire country gets a government it voted against more often than not. Has that ever happened to yours?

 

Whoosh!

 

Scotland swung the results in 1964, 1974 and 2010 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html.

 

In 2010, the Conservatives would have an overall majority in England & Wales and would not have needed the Lib Dems to have an overall majority

[Bishop Briggs]

In one of my posts I said that in western movies the redskin would say, "whiteman speak with forked tongue".

Ad Lib called me out on that saying it was racist.

Fuzzy Afro is that no racist?

 

Fuzzy Afro was the name that poster chose. An Afro was a popular haircut or hair style so how would describing it as "fuzzy" be racist? 

[Peppino Impastato]

Whoosh!

 

Scotland swung the results in 1964, 1974 and 2010 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html.

 

In 2010, the Conservatives would have an overall majority in England & Wales and would not have needed the Lib Dems to have an overall majority

I'm aware of this and actually mentioned it in a post to you two days ago. I also pointed out we have had this happen to us 3 times in the last 6 years, possibly 4 in June.

In not one of those cases did Scotland decide who ran the uk' but had a marginal impact to mildly influence the result. England still got the government it voted for in 2010 to a large extent. Scotland doesn't get that the majority of the time, there is no comparison.

[NotThePars]

Looks good to me. They've got my vote.

Are the greens in contention for any constituency seats?

Checked the odds a couple of weeks ago and Harvie was about 16/1 to win in Glasgow Kelvin so probs not. Still gonna vote for him though. Isn't Finland bringing in a Universal Income?

[renton]

There isn't a democratic deficit there though. No more so than other parts of Britain who don't vote Conservative.

 

This is a question of identity that cannot be solved to either party's satisfaction. Clearly, if you look at it as 600 odd individual constituencies in Britain, then there is no democratic deficit. However, if you accept that the nation of Scotland exists within, but seperate of, Britain with a collective will and conception of how it wishes to be run, then there is a deficit as the collective bargaining strength of Scottish MPs to to lobby on behalf of Scotland is grossly insufficient.

 

there is simply no way to square that circle. Even allowing the correct legal interpretation of the election as dissolving the state of the UK into individual constituencies, most scots, even No voters do not really think that way - indeed, most Englishmen do not think that way. Despite not existing on a Westminster consituency map, the interior nations of the UK exhibit a pull of the minds of voters, commentators and legislators alike. That pull was suffcient to devolve legislatures to localities that encompassed the ancient territory of the old Kingdom of Scotland and Principality of Wales, which would seem inefficient and arbitrary were it not for the nationality concerns. If you were devolving localities purely in terms of geographical sense then you might lump what we call the Scottish borders in with Northumberland, for example. This might make more sense from a delivery of service point of view, if not for the collective historical and cultural gravity of the concept of Scotland.

 

So, insisting on a lack of democratic deficit on the basis of the equality of Westminster constituencies ignores the reality of the nations that make up Britain. It's always worth noting that the conclusion of the Union of parliaments was not a true incorporated state, but a marriage of convenience involving typically British muddle. The legislative seat of all power was moved with finality to London, to sit inside an enlarged English parliament with all that place's traditions and precedence. Britain, then, in terms of the character of it's governing traditions remains basically English in function and outlook. But the cost of that bribe was to leave Scottish institutions in place. With the church, legal and education systems in place, the fabric of Scottish cultural life remained undisturbed and unique from it's English counterpart. Thus the stated aim of Britain to dissolve Scotland and England, to replace them with the state of Britain was, on many levels a failure. Scottish and English identity were not obliterated, nor were they reduced to secondary considerations for most of the citizens in those nations. It's impossible to try and understand modern Britain without integrating that historical narrative.

 

You are absolutely correct, there is no democratic deficit in Britain due to each consituency providing an MP, Fide is also absolutely correct, there is a democratic deficit in terms of how much influence England has in choosing a government for Scotland. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. It's your choice on the precedence of each of those that decides at least in part how you feel about the previous referendum (and any future one).

[Wee Willie]

Fuzzy Afro was the name that poster chose. An Afro was a popular haircut or hair style so how would describing it as "fuzzy" be racist? 

 

I'm auld enough tae ken whit a Fuzzy Afro was/is.

I believe it could have been construed to mean a black man with a bad hair-do.

Some older histories of the British in Africa in the 19th century describe some natives as Fuzzy Wuzzys.

And they all had bad hair-do's

It's my opinion that is where the name comes from.

I think Liberals (you ken who I mean) would say that is racist altho I note that a Lib described a poster just as you did.

[BerwickMad]

moving the goalposts now eh, we're talking about countries not individuals. Your country chooses it's own government, ours doesn't. But since it was you that raised it about East Lothian you give it a go. Bearing in mind their entire country gets a government it voted against more often than not. Has that ever happened to yours?

I'm not in the slightest bit interested how my 'country' votes. I'm interested in how the whole of the parliament who governs me is made up. I am a person not a country, as are you. You have a greater say in how you're governed than me I would say. You certainly have more powers closer to home and a greater say in them than I do.

[Peppino Impastato]

This is a question of identity that cannot be solved to either party's satisfaction. Clearly, if you look at it as 600 odd individual constituencies in Britain, then there is no democratic deficit. However, if you accept that the nation of Scotland exists within, but seperate of, Britain with a collective will and conception of how it wishes to be run, then there is a deficit as the collective bargaining strength of Scottish MPs to to lobby on behalf of Scotland is grossly insufficient.

there is simply no way to square that circle. Even allowing the correct legal interpretation of the election as dissolving the state of the UK into individual constituencies, most scots, even No voters do not really think that way - indeed, most Englishmen do not think that way. Despite not existing on a Westminster consituency map, the interior nations of the UK exhibit a pull of the minds of voters, commentators and legislators alike. That pull was suffcient to devolve legislatures to localities that encompassed the ancient territory of the old Kingdom of Scotland and Principality of Wales, which would seem inefficient and arbitrary were it not for the nationality concerns. If you were devolving localities purely in terms of geographical sense then you might lump what we call the Scottish borders in with Northumberland, for example. This might make more sense from a delivery of service point of view, if not for the collective historical and cultural gravity of the concept of Scotland.

So, insisting on a lack of democratic deficit on the basis of the equality of Westminster constituencies ignores the reality of the nations that make up Britain. It's always worth noting that the conclusion of the Union of parliaments was not a true incorporated state, but a marriage of convenience involving typically British muddle. The legislative seat of all power was moved with finality to London, to sit inside an enlarged English parliament with all that place's traditions and precedence. Britain, then, in terms of the character of it's governing traditions remains basically English in function and outlook. But the cost of that bribe was to leave Scottish institutions in place. With the church, legal and education systems in place, the fabric of Scottish cultural life remained undisturbed and unique from it's English counterpart. Thus the stated aim of Britain to dissolve Scotland and England, to replace them with the state of Britain was, on many levels a failure. Scottish and English identity were not obliterated, nor were they reduced to secondary considerations for most of the citizens in those nations. It's impossible to try and understand modern Britain without integrating that historical narrative.

You are absolutely correct, there is no democratic deficit in Britain due to each consituency providing an MP, Fide is also absolutely correct, there is a democratic deficit in terms of how much influence England has in choosing a government for Scotland. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. It's your choice on the precedence of each of those that decides at least in part how you feel about the previous referendum (and any future one).

Brilliant post best I've ever read. You might also have mentioned if the constituent nations of the UK were not an issue in its governance there would be no need for evel.

sorry I just red dotted it by mistake

[Peppino Impastato]

I'm not in the slightest bit interested how my 'country' votes. I'm interested in how the whole of the parliament who governs me is made up. I am a person not a country, as are you. You have a greater say in how you're governed than me I would say. You certainly have more powers closer to home and a greater say in them than I do.

sure you're not, all britnats say that. None of us believe it champ.

Your country decides who governs it mine doesn't, those are the facts, twist them any way you want they're still facts.

[BerwickMad]

This is a question of identity that cannot be solved to either party's satisfaction. Clearly, if you look at it as 600 odd individual constituencies in Britain, then there is no democratic deficit. However, if you accept that the nation of Scotland exists within, but seperate of, Britain with a collective will and conception of how it wishes to be run, then there is a deficit as the collective bargaining strength of Scottish MPs to to lobby on behalf of Scotland is grossly insufficient.

there is simply no way to square that circle. Even allowing the correct legal interpretation of the election as dissolving the state of the UK into individual constituencies, most scots, even No voters do not really think that way - indeed, most Englishmen do not think that way. Despite not existing on a Westminster consituency map, the interior nations of the UK exhibit a pull of the minds of voters, commentators and legislators alike. That pull was suffcient to devolve legislatures to localities that encompassed the ancient territory of the old Kingdom of Scotland and Principality of Wales, which would seem inefficient and arbitrary were it not for the nationality concerns. If you were devolving localities purely in terms of geographical sense then you might lump what we call the Scottish borders in with Northumberland, for example. This might make more sense from a delivery of service point of view, if not for the collective historical and cultural gravity of the concept of Scotland.

So, insisting on a lack of democratic deficit on the basis of the equality of Westminster constituencies ignores the reality of the nations that make up Britain. It's always worth noting that the conclusion of the Union of parliaments was not a true incorporated state, but a marriage of convenience involving typically British muddle. The legislative seat of all power was moved with finality to London, to sit inside an enlarged English parliament with all that place's traditions and precedence. Britain, then, in terms of the character of it's governing traditions remains basically English in function and outlook. But the cost of that bribe was to leave Scottish institutions in place. With the church, legal and education systems in place, the fabric of Scottish cultural life remained undisturbed and unique from it's English counterpart. Thus the stated aim of Britain to dissolve Scotland and England, to replace them with the state of Britain was, on many levels a failure. Scottish and English identity were not obliterated, nor were they reduced to secondary considerations for most of the citizens in those nations. It's impossible to try and understand modern Britain without integrating that historical narrative.

You are absolutely correct, there is no democratic deficit in Britain due to each consituency providing an MP, Fide is also absolutely correct, there is a democratic deficit in terms of how much influence England has in choosing a government for Scotland. Those statements are not mutually exclusive. It's your choice on the precedence of each of those that decides at least in part how you feel about the previous referendum (and any future one).

Good post actually.

[Bishop Briggs]

I'm aware of this and actually mentioned it in a post to you two days ago. I also pointed out we have had this happen to us 3 times in the last 6 years, possibly 4 in June. In not one of those cases did Scotland decide who ran the uk' but had a marginal impact to mildly influence the result. England still got the government it voted for in 2010 to a large extent. Scotland doesn't get that the majority of the time, there is no comparison.

 

The Lib Dems had a big say on the Coalition's policies and stopped a lot of the Conservative manifesto pledges being implemented. They also blocked the boundary changes despite having agreed to them previously.

 

The huge political difference between Scotland and England is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started about 50 to 60 years ago and resulted from the dramatic decline of the Scottish Unionists/Conservatives. It's only when England has voted Conservative since that Scotland has been "out of step".

 

Over the last two centuries, Scotland has often voted in line with the rest of the UK. Andrew Bonar Law represented Glasgow Central when he became Tory PM. The rise of Scottish nationalism reflects the recent decline of the Labour Party in Scotland, similar to the decline of Scottish Unionism and Conservatism. It too, could decline in future decades.

[Peppino Impastato]

The Lib Dems had a big say on the Coalition's policies and stopped a lot of the Conservative manifesto pledges being implemented. They also blocked the boundary changes despite having agreed to them previously.

 

The huge political difference between Scotland and England is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started about 50 to 60 years ago and resulted from the dramatic decline of the Scottish Unionists/Conservatives. It's only when England has voted Conservative since that Scotland has been "out of step".

 

Over the last two centuries, Scotland has often voted in line with the rest of the UK. Andrew Bonar Law represented Glasgow Central when he became Tory PM. The rise of Scottish nationalism reflects the recent decline of the Labour Party in Scotland, similar to the decline of Scottish Unionism and Conservatism. It too, could decline in future decades.

so most of the time then. Okay, time to get off this train.

[Bishop Briggs]

I'm auld enough tae ken whit a Fuzzy Afro was/is.

I believe it could have been construed to mean a black man with a bad hair-do.

Some older histories of the British in Africa in the 19th century describe some natives as Fuzzy Wuzzys.

And they all had bad hair-do's

It's my opinion that is where the name comes from.

I think Liberals (you ken who I mean) would say that is racist altho I note that a Lib described a poster just as you did.

 

Not according to my memory. An Afro was a chosen hairstyle. The Jackson 5 had Afros and that were immaculate. I thought that the term "fuzzy wuzzy" originated in a poem by Kipling which referred to the British soldiers' respect for Sudanese warriors. I have just inherited the complete works of Kipling. The first time I heard "fuzzy wuzzy" used on Dad's Army. The BBC still airs those episodes so it must have passed the PC/racism tests.  

[Bishop Briggs]

so most of the time then. Okay, time to get off this train.

 

No rarely. Time to admit that you were on the wrong train of thought.

[Peppino Impastato]

No rarely. Time to admit that you were on the wrong train of thought.

more than half the time is not rarely.

You're on the wrong train of thought.

[renton]

The Lib Dems had a big say on the Coalition's policies and stopped a lot of the Conservative manifesto pledges being implemented. They also blocked the boundary changes despite having agreed to them previously.

 

The huge political difference between Scotland and England is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started about 50 to 60 years ago and resulted from the dramatic decline of the Scottish Unionists/Conservatives. It's only when England has voted Conservative since that Scotland has been "out of step".

 

Over the last two centuries, Scotland has often voted in line with the rest of the UK. Andrew Bonar Law represented Glasgow Central when he became Tory PM. The rise of Scottish nationalism reflects the recent decline of the Labour Party in Scotland, similar to the decline of Scottish Unionism and Conservatism. It too, could decline in future decades.

 

bare in mind we've only had universal sufferage for less than half of that, and that Labour popularity under Hardie in Scotland was at least partly predicated on a form of home rule that would all but remove Scotland from the legislative effects of Westminster over domestic affiars. I do believe there is room for the decline of Scottish nationalism, I don't believe it's a consequence of the popularity of a given party - more that those are an indicator of the underlying opinions of the day. Present Scottish nationalism is related to the relative decline in the concept of Britain and it's ability (and desire) to care for all it's citizens. A clear linkage to industrial and imperial decline. 1979 represents a faultline in Scottish demographics, if not 'for' independence, then at least being open to the concept of it. The notion of Scottishness never went away, but previously it had been able to co-exist with Britishness. Partly through economic prosperity, partly through genuine kinship and partly through being largely left alone by Westminster. The last 40 odd years have seen massive assaults on the first and third of those pillars of community. We must also factor in the progressive changes in technology and it's effect on succeeding generations. We live in a time when things get faster, faster. We can't ignore the pull of a progressive alternative away from the sclerotic and quite clearly insane institutions of the British state.

[Wee Willie]

The Lib Dems had a big say on the Coalition's policies and stopped a lot of the Conservative manifesto pledges being implemented. They also blocked the boundary changes despite having agreed to them previously.

 

The huge political difference between Scotland and England is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started about 50 to 60 years ago and resulted from the dramatic decline of the Scottish Unionists/Conservatives. It's only when England has voted Conservative since that Scotland has been "out of step".

 

Over the last two centuries, Scotland has often voted in line with the rest of the UK. Andrew Bonar Law represented Glasgow Central when he became Tory PM. The rise of Scottish nationalism reflects the recent decline of the Labour Party in Scotland, similar to the decline of Scottish Unionism and Conservatism. It too, could decline in future decades.

Of course she did.

There wasn't any opposition - nae SNP.

You mention Bonar Law so you are talking politics the late19th/ early 20th century.

That was when the Labour party (UK) was just starting out and had many of the setbacks the future SNP party had when they first arrived on the scene.

Also that was the time that voters were expected to vote the same way the bosses (local lairds) wanted them tae vote.