Proportional Representation vs Electoral Collages

by Simon 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  notsurewheretogo,

  you are referring to the GERS figures. I simply don’t believe them. They count Scottish liabilities but don’t count assets. It’s cynical propaganda set up by Westminster to undermine Scotland.

  https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/21/whatever-gers-reports-today-its-important-to-remember-its-still-crap-or-a-completely-rubbish-approximation-to-the-truth/

  Income is estimated on the basis of that arising IN Scotland but spending is estimated on the basis of that arising FOR Scotland. So, only taxes paid in Scotland are included. But expenditure in England (mainly), Wales and Northern Ireland is also charged to Scotland when Scotland is deemed to benefit from it. But the tax paid to generate that expenditure is not taken into account. The system is, then, inherently designed to show a deficit.

  But they over egg the pudding, because if GERS figures were literally to be believed, Scotland would be responsible for most of the UK deficit (all on its own!) and be an absolute basket case. Is that really what you see in this country? It’s just not credible, and when you look at how the figures are derived you see why.

  Income levels in Scotland are higher than much of England outside London, we have top universities, nice tourist attractions, lots of visitors, all sorts of vibrant businesses from finance to food and drink. Is it really a basket case? There’s a huge mismatch between the propaganda that talks Scotland down by various statistical tricks and the reality in the country. The truth is Scotland is pretty middle of the road in the UK: poorer than London and the south east, wealthier than Wales, Northern Ireland, and most of the regions of England.

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44237180

  That’s a fair assessment of Scotland’s current standing: not excellent, and not a basket case either. We are certainly equipped to govern ourselves, and if free to make our own choices for our own circumstances, we have a good chance of doing well.

  Ireland grew from one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the richest as part of the EU and outside the United Kingdom. Unless Scottish people are especially stupid or lazy, why would we not prosper too? The idea that Scotland is too wee, poor, and stupid to govern itself successfully is an amazing feat of British propaganda, promoted at the same time that hundreds of billions was being extracted from the North Sea to prop up failing neoliberal governments in London. Nothing is certain in history or economics, but there’s every reason to believe Scotland will fare better as a independent country.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Many promises were made during the 2014 campaign that were not kept, such as a secure place in the EU - a secure place in the EU wasn't a promise, or if any politician did promise it, the Scottish electorate shouldn't have fallen for it. Please stop treating the Scottish electorate like a group of special needs children - they are adults who know what they're doing and should take responsibility for their choices in life. The Scots knew that they were being asked to vote in 2014 on UK membership and that a UK-wide referendum on EU membership would happen soon after, a massive voting exercise that could go either way. All the party leaders and most mainstream politicians thought that Remain in the EU would win. But they were wrong.

  Scotland voted for a parliament that is in favour of a new referendum before 2021. Why should your opinion matter more than Scottish elections and the Scottish Parliament? - The SNP manifesto may indeed call for IndyRef 2 before 2021. But this isn't respecting the first IndyRef result. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for the recent SNP manifesto, BTW.

  In fact, more Scots voted in 2014 to stay in the UK than voted SNP in this recent general election. Something to think about, perhaps ...

  Also, please address what Nosurewheretogo says on this matter. He has posted figures and percentages multiple times on this thread.

  We could avoid the expense of further elections and just defer to your opinion? - no, that's not my opinion. My opinion goes something like this:

  In maybe 10 or 15 years, a second referendum sounds like a reasonable idea.
  
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Ok so you ignore or don't believe GERS figures and are willing to gamble the future of the nation and families based on that gamble? I don't like that risk.

  You keep saying it was a SNP landslide last Thursday and it was...in terms of seats.

  But in an indy referendum it is number of voters that counts and it is only 2 options to choose from. Yes or No.

  If you take all the votes for pro-union parties and add them together 56% of Scotland voted for them. If they were all one party then SNP would have ten seats not 48 as only ten seats won by more than 50% of the votes.

  I'm struggling to understand why you think Scotland has a mandate for indyref2 when a) the number of voters that voted SNP, the only indy party, was 35% of the entire voting population of Scotland and only 45% of those that actually voted and b) Of those that voted SNP, the 45% it is estimated 25% of them voted tactically against the Tories and do not support independence.

  How can Scotland have a mandate for another indyref when the latest polls show it is not over 50% but more importantly the majority of Scotland in terms of number of voters voted for pro-union parties.

  The SNP are not the majority of Scottish voters and do not represent a majority of Scottish people if you count votes not seats and it is votes that will the important thing in an indyref.

  If the majority of Scotland do not want an indyref and align themselves to parties and vote in the GE to say so then surely it is against democracy and a complete waste of time and money to have another indyref?

  Add in the main reason why it seems to have indyred2 is to get back into the EU where the SNP acknowledge it will take decades via their Growth Commission report then it makes no sense.

  I think we need to get Brexit done, the SNP improve their awful track record of devolved powers and let our nations heal a bit. Perhaps review in 5 years time.

  I've done 2 referendums and 3 GE's in the last 5 years. Time to stop.
• 

  cofty

  I can't begin to imagine how divisive another indy ref would be right now.

  But the English hating bigots that dominate the conversation on social media would thrive on the chaos.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think Scotland would fare O.K if she became independent. GDP per person is high, skills are there, Financial Sector is there, and they are well placed to trade when independent.

  For various reasons I do not think that 2020 is the right time to hold a Referendum, not least because I think the result would be close, despite what the Press may say,and Social Media pundits.

  Once the real debacle of Brexit has begun to bite, then it will be the time, and I say good luck and all the best to our Scottish friends. England would not like it because they would slip behind Brazil on the list of Countries GDP per person.

  There are alternatives,real devolution of power, not some half-arsed attempt at one.

  I back Proportional representation of some sort for the whole of the U.K, if that came first, Independence as an issue may fade. I will not hold my breath, the Evil Tory Racist Government just elected by a broken system, would not stand a chance with P.R of getting a majority, so will resist it to the last.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I back Proportional representation of some sort for the whole of the U.K, if that came first, Independence as an issue may fade. I will not hold my breath, the Evil Tory Racist Government just elected by a broken system, would not stand a chance with P.R of getting a majority, so will resist it to the last - but proportional representation would also hit the SNP very hard ... no IndyRef Mk 2 in that case.
  
• 

  cofty

  the Evil Tory Racist Government... Phizzy

  That is exactly what is wrong with current political debate.

  When we attribute evil intentions to those we differ from there is no possibility of progress. Tory MPs care passionately about the NHS and injustice just as much as any other parties - despite the irrational rhetoric that echoes around the socialist social media bubble. But they also care about other sets of values that the far left don't. It's about balancing priorities. It's not about evil and racism.

  You might want to read Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. It helped me better understand why politics has become so polarised.
  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  I will read the book, thanks for the recommendation Cofty. But I stand by the label I gave this Government, a racist P.M and many racist M.P's, Austerity taking the lives of thousands, ... I could go on.

  I am proud to be as an individual the polar opposite of such people. Where my political affiliation will go, remains to be seen, but, I am 70 years old, I do know fully what the Conservative Party is and does. I have lived through it.

  I do hope we can get away from a binary choice as to government, and P R seems the only way to break the cycle.
• 

  Simon

  Phizzy: you don't get to just throw labels around like evil or racist without pointing to evidence. You have none.

  Corbyn was provably racist though - there was a body of evidence of anti-semitism among his supporters and no doubt they are the same anti-democracy demonstrators out in the streets.

  The labor party is the party of racists and fascists and they have been for some time.
• 

  cofty

  Phizzy _ I would be genuinely interested in the reasons why you accuse Boris of racism.

  Don't get me wrong I think there is plenty to criticise Boris about but I have no idea why his enemies stick this label on him.