Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works1 min ago
Should Scotland Be Exempt From The New Union Bill?
33 Answers
http://
Personally I don't think so.
Personally I don't think so.
Answers
PR would not have been too beneficial or the SNP, steg. They polled 4.7% of the vote which would have given them around 30 seats, compared to the 56 they actually achieved. UKIP, by comparison, polled 12.7% of the votes which would have given them around 82 seats compared to the one they achieved. The SNP are constantly harping on about the share of the vote they...
15:32 Sat 17th Oct 2015
NJ you have often compared the Scots Parliament to a Parish Council but can you name any Parish Council with the same powers as the Scots Parliament?
With regards to the number of SNP MPs, using the proportion of the votes cast in the whole UK would not be fair since the SNP does not field candidates outwith Scotland and while you think it an unfair system, the electorate chose to keep it.
With regards to the number of SNP MPs, using the proportion of the votes cast in the whole UK would not be fair since the SNP does not field candidates outwith Scotland and while you think it an unfair system, the electorate chose to keep it.
“…the SNP does not field candidates outwith Scotland”
Then that’s their choice. That being the case they cannot expect to be granted special privileges in the UK Parliament if they choose to put themselves for election in only a small part of the country. There is often UK legislation that is passed that does not particularly suit a particular area or section of the electorate. That’s tough. But whilst they remain part of the UK (and they were asked if they wanted to remain which is more than the rest of the UK were) the Scots are no more entitled to exemption from any particular legislation than is London, Cornwall or Liverpool.
For the record I do not support PR in any way. I am a staunch supporter of the FPTP system because I believe voters should be encouraged to vote for candidates to represent them at Westminster, not parties who will choose their representatives for them..
Then that’s their choice. That being the case they cannot expect to be granted special privileges in the UK Parliament if they choose to put themselves for election in only a small part of the country. There is often UK legislation that is passed that does not particularly suit a particular area or section of the electorate. That’s tough. But whilst they remain part of the UK (and they were asked if they wanted to remain which is more than the rest of the UK were) the Scots are no more entitled to exemption from any particular legislation than is London, Cornwall or Liverpool.
For the record I do not support PR in any way. I am a staunch supporter of the FPTP system because I believe voters should be encouraged to vote for candidates to represent them at Westminster, not parties who will choose their representatives for them..
Well said, TCL.
You appeared to have forgotten - again, NJ - that the SNP stood for election only in the 59 Scottish constituencies, whereas UKIP stood in most of the 650 throughout the UK. Comparing numbers of votes each party won is, therefore, no more than an irrelevant ‘apples’n’pears’ argument. The SNP won a vastly higher proportion of the seats they contested than the UKIP did. It's just silly to say that they simply "chose" not to stand outwith Scotland!
You appeared to have forgotten - again, NJ - that the SNP stood for election only in the 59 Scottish constituencies, whereas UKIP stood in most of the 650 throughout the UK. Comparing numbers of votes each party won is, therefore, no more than an irrelevant ‘apples’n’pears’ argument. The SNP won a vastly higher proportion of the seats they contested than the UKIP did. It's just silly to say that they simply "chose" not to stand outwith Scotland!
this is another case of SNP braveheart syndrome..Scotland DOES NOT WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT .....wee Nicky is already teetering as she has ruled out any such talk at the conference..methinks she fears the Corbyn effect in Scotland...and has had her oil argument dissed by price drop (pointed out to her so many times it is embarrassing )..
Sorry, QM, but I cannot agree.
I have not forgotten than the SNP stood only in Scotland. I was using the proportion of votes cast to seats gained simply to show that proportional representation would not have seen them gain as many seats in the Westminster Parliament as they did under FPTP. Had they fielded candidates in all 650 constituencies I doubt their proportion of the total vote would have been significantly increased, although of course there may be many of their supporters living in the rest of the UK.
However, it is all by the way. There is simply no point in arguing that because the SNP choose only to stand in Scotland that it is the proportion of votes cast only in Scotland that should be considered. A similar argument could be proposed for a "London National Party" or a "Cornwall National Party". So long as those areas remain part of the UK then in General Elections their constituents' votes (and indeed their MPs’ votes in Parliament) carry no more weight than any others.
The Scots enjoy far greater democratic privileges than anybody else in the UK and this was probably a factor for many Scots when casting their vote in the referendum. They know what side their bread is buttered. That plebiscite resulted in a decisive vote to remain part of the UK. The SNP seems singularly unwilling or unable to accept this fact for still they carp on that the best interests of Scotland are not served by a government in Westminster (despite the electorate deciding that it would). So it is not “…just silly to say that they simply "chose" not to stand outwith Scotland!”. The Scottish people chose to remain under the rule of Westminster and the way for the SNP to gain a greater say in that forum is to have more MPs there. Except, of course, that so narrow are their interests and policies that they are most unlikely to appeal to many people elsewhere and so few, if any SNP MPs would be returned from the rest of the UK.
And so there’s the rub: Scottish constituencies remain part of the UK (a decision of the Scottish people); being considerably in the minority their interests (via their MPs) cannot trump those of the rest of the UK and exceptions to legislation passed in Westminster should not be countenanced.
I have not forgotten than the SNP stood only in Scotland. I was using the proportion of votes cast to seats gained simply to show that proportional representation would not have seen them gain as many seats in the Westminster Parliament as they did under FPTP. Had they fielded candidates in all 650 constituencies I doubt their proportion of the total vote would have been significantly increased, although of course there may be many of their supporters living in the rest of the UK.
However, it is all by the way. There is simply no point in arguing that because the SNP choose only to stand in Scotland that it is the proportion of votes cast only in Scotland that should be considered. A similar argument could be proposed for a "London National Party" or a "Cornwall National Party". So long as those areas remain part of the UK then in General Elections their constituents' votes (and indeed their MPs’ votes in Parliament) carry no more weight than any others.
The Scots enjoy far greater democratic privileges than anybody else in the UK and this was probably a factor for many Scots when casting their vote in the referendum. They know what side their bread is buttered. That plebiscite resulted in a decisive vote to remain part of the UK. The SNP seems singularly unwilling or unable to accept this fact for still they carp on that the best interests of Scotland are not served by a government in Westminster (despite the electorate deciding that it would). So it is not “…just silly to say that they simply "chose" not to stand outwith Scotland!”. The Scottish people chose to remain under the rule of Westminster and the way for the SNP to gain a greater say in that forum is to have more MPs there. Except, of course, that so narrow are their interests and policies that they are most unlikely to appeal to many people elsewhere and so few, if any SNP MPs would be returned from the rest of the UK.
And so there’s the rub: Scottish constituencies remain part of the UK (a decision of the Scottish people); being considerably in the minority their interests (via their MPs) cannot trump those of the rest of the UK and exceptions to legislation passed in Westminster should not be countenanced.
NJ, certainly the Scottish electorate "chose" not to go for independence, but that is a whole different ball-game, as they say, from the SNP fielding candidates only in Scotland, since that had nothing to do with “choosing” at all!
Or are you seriously suggesting that you yourself would have found nothing whatever odd on May 7th, in your own parliamentary constituency, about seeing the names of candidates from Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Scottish Socialist Party on your local ballot form?
Or are you seriously suggesting that you yourself would have found nothing whatever odd on May 7th, in your own parliamentary constituency, about seeing the names of candidates from Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Scottish Socialist Party on your local ballot form?
"Whilst they are part of the UK they should accept the decisions of the UK Parliament" since the SNP are a minority in a majority Tory Parliament they cannot force a change.
However, if Parliament does agree to the SNP's proposals, should you not do what you expect of Scots and accept those changes?
However, if Parliament does agree to the SNP's proposals, should you not do what you expect of Scots and accept those changes?
“Or are you seriously suggesting that you yourself would have found nothing whatever odd on May 7th, in your own parliamentary constituency, about seeing the names of candidates from Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Scottish Socialist Party on your local ballot form?”
Yes I would find it odd. But these single issue minority parties cannot complain that they cannot secure a majority to see their policies enacted if they do not have a majority in Parliament. And they never will because their policies are only relevant to small minorities of the electorate. It’s called democracy – the majority prevails and that majority is that of the UK Parliament because Scotland is part of the UK. It IS the SNP’s choice to field candidates only in Scotland. There is nothing to prevent them fielding candidates elsewhere. But it would clearly be a waste of time for the reasons above.
“However, if Parliament does agree to the SNP's proposals, should you not do what you expect of Scots and accept those changes?”
Yes I would accept any changes enacted by the full UK Parliament.
Yes I would find it odd. But these single issue minority parties cannot complain that they cannot secure a majority to see their policies enacted if they do not have a majority in Parliament. And they never will because their policies are only relevant to small minorities of the electorate. It’s called democracy – the majority prevails and that majority is that of the UK Parliament because Scotland is part of the UK. It IS the SNP’s choice to field candidates only in Scotland. There is nothing to prevent them fielding candidates elsewhere. But it would clearly be a waste of time for the reasons above.
“However, if Parliament does agree to the SNP's proposals, should you not do what you expect of Scots and accept those changes?”
Yes I would accept any changes enacted by the full UK Parliament.
" It’s called democracy – the majority prevails..."
Well really it's a plurality prevailing rather than a majority -- or a majority elected by a minority if you like. But I'm not going into all that again really. The basic point -- that Scotland can bloody well lump it as long as they are part of the UK -- I agree with.
Although you might be doing the SNP not enough credit by writing off their chances in England, had they stood for election south of the border. Might have been appealing enough particularly in the North of England to add a few seats to their tally, although most likely it would just have served to kill off Labour even more dramatically. Ah, the joys of FPTP (OK, I did go there) and its horrible spoiler effect.
Well really it's a plurality prevailing rather than a majority -- or a majority elected by a minority if you like. But I'm not going into all that again really. The basic point -- that Scotland can bloody well lump it as long as they are part of the UK -- I agree with.
Although you might be doing the SNP not enough credit by writing off their chances in England, had they stood for election south of the border. Might have been appealing enough particularly in the North of England to add a few seats to their tally, although most likely it would just have served to kill off Labour even more dramatically. Ah, the joys of FPTP (OK, I did go there) and its horrible spoiler effect.
It's their Yuman Rights which are at stake, jackdaw.
Yes I agree, jim, I'm sure the SNP might have picked up a few seats here and there had they fielded candidates elsewhere. But they are no different to any other minority interest party. They appeal to only a small percentage of the electorate and they will continue to do so as long as their overriding policy is one which has little interest for non-Scots. I keep harping back to it but make no apology because it is important. The Scots had their say on the composition of the UK (which is more than the other 90% or so of the electorate did) and they made their choice. It is unfortunate that their choice was diametrically opposed to the principle aim of the SNP. But that's what happens when you ask people what they want. They sometimes tell you things you may not like to hear.
Yes I agree, jim, I'm sure the SNP might have picked up a few seats here and there had they fielded candidates elsewhere. But they are no different to any other minority interest party. They appeal to only a small percentage of the electorate and they will continue to do so as long as their overriding policy is one which has little interest for non-Scots. I keep harping back to it but make no apology because it is important. The Scots had their say on the composition of the UK (which is more than the other 90% or so of the electorate did) and they made their choice. It is unfortunate that their choice was diametrically opposed to the principle aim of the SNP. But that's what happens when you ask people what they want. They sometimes tell you things you may not like to hear.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.