BBC Leaders Debate 2016

[Thunderstruck]

I'm in the Jim Sillars camp. 56 out of 59 MPS at the last general election is the people of Scotland voting for independence. I know many may not agree. That is what I believe.

There are a couple of factors that militate against this view:

 

1. The "sales pitch" was "vote for us and we will hold Labour to account and get a better deal for Scotland".

 

Of course there were other factors in play but it is reasonable to suggest that SNP politicking played a significant role in keeping Middle England with the Tories and keeping them in power. Remember the posters with Milliband in Salmond's pocket - a golden propaganda opportunity for Cameron.

 

2. The actual number of votes gained by SNP in Westminster election was not a kick in the a**e off the Yes vote in 2014, which only goes to prove that SNP/Yes supporters were better motivated. It should also be remembered that more votes were cast for parties other than SNP but we all know of the inadequacy of FPTP.

[Hasselhoff]

If 56/59 seats should mean Scotland voting for independence then equally 28/32 constituencies voting no should mean the opposite. The latter is the more clear result as there are only 2 options. In the former, 45% of votes going to one party is always going to beat 55% of votes getting split between 3+ parties. Not exactly rocket science.

 

But it would be ridiculous to say either counted. The only way to decide is to have a referendum where every vote counts. Not a poll or series of polls like Sturgeon is now looking out for but a proper vote which we had legitimately almost 2 years ago which should be respected.

 

If UK vote to remain in the EU and Scotland agreed with that decision, we wouldn't be too happy to see those behind Leave suddenly wanting another vote with all the uncertainty that brings (sturgeon even acknowledged it is bringing uncertainty). There is no conclusive proof that the yes vote is increasing at all and so it is just the SNP focussing on their number one priority instead of concentrating on the things that matter.

[Boris]

If 56/59 seats should mean Scotland voting for independence then equally 28/32 constituencies voting no should mean the opposite. The latter is the more clear result as there are only 2 options. In the former, 45% of votes going to one party is always going to beat 55% of votes getting split between 3+ parties. Not exactly rocket science.

 

But it would be ridiculous to say either counted. The only way to decide is to have a referendum where every vote counts. Not a poll or series of polls like Sturgeon is now looking out for but a proper vote which we had legitimately almost 2 years ago which should be respected.

 

If UK vote to remain in the EU and Scotland agreed with that decision, we wouldn't be too happy to see those behind Leave suddenly wanting another vote with all the uncertainty that brings (sturgeon even acknowledged it is bringing uncertainty). There is no conclusive proof that the yes vote is increasing at all and so it is just the SNP focussing on their number one priority instead of concentrating on the things that matter.

Fair enough, but how do you explain the Snp's electoral dominance? If anything, it has increased since the referendum.

 

Ironically, should the Tories become the opposition, that may just swing remaining Labour voters to the snp and ultimately independence. Maybe.

[JamboX2]

But they didn't. Was it because, as Johann Lamont seemed to suggest, that they looked down their noses at the "kiddy-on parliament" and felt their bread was better buttered from the Westminster trough?

 

If that is a common perception, you can understand the feeling against this Labour hierarchy by the average bod.

 

So, not disagreeing with you in that these, undoubtedly talented, politicians should have served at Holyrood, it's just that their ego or opinion of Holyrood felt that it was beneath them.

 

I thought Holyrood was set up so that no one party could EVER rule? You would more or less always have a coalition. How do you explain the unparalleled support the SNP has? It is something of a phenomenon.

It's a mixture. JAG is right on Dewar. He vetted MPs and favoured the selection of councillors to MPs as he feared the MPs would desire more powers than his more cautious approach to devolution would allow. Dewar, whilst being a very talented and skilled politician was also liable to being cautious, as is every politician in his or now Sturgeons position. Davidson and his ilk, old labour types who had little time for Blair would've pushed harder for a Labour Government in Scotland to do more.

 

That attitude from Holyrood really resulted in the division which came about. Although, I dare say some (Brown to a degree) did try to dictate policy and direction.

 

The SNPs support? Well it's hard to explain. But in part it's a timid opposition and weak leadership are parts of it. And that is something which was caused by the weakness in candidate selection in 1999.

[coconut doug]

The SNPs support? Well it's hard to explain. But in part it's a timid opposition and weak leadership are parts of it. And that is something which was caused by the weakness in candidate selection in 1999.

Here's what you said 31/7/14 "Salmond was usually made mincemeat of when he was opposition leader between 1999-2000. Not only that he lead a poor campaign in the 1999 election. Things like a penny for Scotland and the Kosovo showed his foolhardy side and lost him votes. In the chamber he also at times carried little weight, against what was then an extremely strong cabinet in devolved terms. Dewar, Jim Wallace, McLeish, Alexander, Deacon, Galbraith, Finnie and even McConnell."

 

 

You should know why there is massive support for the SNP though, it has been explained on numerous occasions.

 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

I have never not accepted it. Unlike the SNP who simply DO NOT ACCEPT that 55.4% voted to remain part of the UK.

Yoon#

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Watched the 4 candidates for Aberdeen earlier on the news. It was like 4 bald boys arguing over a comb.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Fair enough, but how do you explain the Snp's electoral dominance? If anything, it has increased since the referendum.

 

Ironically, should the Tories become the opposition, that may just swing remaining Labour voters to the snp and ultimately independence. Maybe.

 

Just my opinion and based on nothing apart from my own personal view.

 

I think part of why the SNP has been gaining in strength over the last decade or more is this.

 

They are the only party which doesn't take it's orders from Westminster.

 

Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Lib Dems all take their orders from HQ based in London, whilst the SNP don't.

 

The people of Scotland finally woke up to the fact that what was the point of having a devolved parliament when those in charge weren't really in charge after all, they still had to get their paymasters in Westminster's approval before they could do anything.   

 

Johann Lamont summed it up when she said that the Labour party in London treated Scotland like a branch office and that is I believe part of the problem Scottish Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have.

For the foreseeable future none of them are going to make any real inroads into the SNP's dominance until they become completely separate parties out with the complete control of London.

None of them can call themselves Scottish until they are truly Scottish and not acting like a branch office for London.

 

As I said what is the point of having a devolved parliament when it was ran for, and controlled from London.

[coconut doug]

If 56/59 seats should mean Scotland voting for independence then equally 28/32 constituencies voting no should mean the opposite. The latter is the more clear result as there are only 2 options. In the former, 45% of votes going to one party is always going to beat 55% of votes getting split between 3+ parties. Not exactly rocket science.

 

But it would be ridiculous to say either counted. The only way to decide is to have a referendum where every vote counts. Not a poll or series of polls like Sturgeon is now looking out for but a proper vote which we had legitimately almost 2 years ago which should be respected.

 

If UK vote to remain in the EU and Scotland agreed with that decision, we wouldn't be too happy to see those behind Leave suddenly wanting another vote with all the uncertainty that brings (sturgeon even acknowledged it is bringing uncertainty). There is no conclusive proof that the yes vote is increasing at all and so it is just the SNP focussing on their number one priority instead of concentrating on the things that matter.

There will be no indy unless a majority of people want it. Likewise the referendum. How will we know? Voting patterns and intentions will have changed. If they do not change there will be no referendum. The previous vote has been respected. There will not be another one until there are significant changes.

 

By your logic we could never have another referendum because we could never find a mechanism for deciding if there was any demand for it. This is the conlablib position. It's undemocratic but it has to be because democratic expression is what they are afraid of.

 

It's just like conlablib's continued support for the House of Lords. Totally undemocratic and unrepresentative but supported by all 3 establishment parties. It is a buffer against popular opinion.

 

Yes supporters are democrats. The posturing on the No side shows they are not. Denying people the right to express their opinions is just not democratic. The problem they have is that a Yes vote is

virtually irreversible and NO can only lose once. Yes can keep on losing until they win. No should try to find better arguments for maintaining the union rather than trying to prevent perfectly legitimate means of democratic expression. In their democratic denial they undermine their own position as they do when insulting SNP and Yes voters. The attempts at decrying and rubbishing the SNP govt are equally baffling. We have had several years of unadventurous, steady as she goes govt, with very modest successes yet many conlablib supporters scream incompetence and corruption. The people of Scotland are not as stupid as many NO voters think they are and if No commentators  continue to demean at every opportunity they will only succeed in bringing the next referendum closer.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

^ indeed funny when willie rennie says to the lad that he respected his views then went on a rant about independence.

[JamboX2]

Here's what you said 31/7/14 "Salmond was usually made mincemeat of when he was opposition leader between 1999-2000. Not only that he lead a poor campaign in the 1999 election. Things like a penny for Scotland and the Kosovo showed his foolhardy side and lost him votes. In the chamber he also at times carried little weight, against what was then an extremely strong cabinet in devolved terms. Dewar, Jim Wallace, McLeish, Alexander, Deacon, Galbraith, Finnie and even McConnell."

 

 

You should know why there is massive support for the SNP though, it has been explained on numerous occasions.

 

Stand by that. All those mentioned were good politicians. Salmond was not the force he was then, he learnt from those early mistakes and came back stronger. Equally, when he returned Labour had lost - Dewar and McLeish, the Liberals had lost Wallace and the ministers of any calibre such as Deacon and Galbraith had either dropped out of politics due to party disputes or due to ill health and Alexander was a backbencher at the time who was quickly hobbled over nothing upon assuming the leadership however she did show promise, certainly better than Ian Gray!

 

As for the SNP. Aye, it has. I'll chuck in the referendum campaign and Cameron in the immediate aftermath coming out and jeprodising the unionist parties over EVEL within hours.

[Thunderstruck]

Fair enough, but how do you explain the Snp's electoral dominance? If anything, it has increased since the referendum.

 

Curiously, there was no growth in SNP support (if you conflate "Yes" with SNP). Yes vote was 1,617,989 but SNP vote last May was 1,454,436. That is 37% of electorate down to 35% which, if John Curtice is to believed (and why not), is where support for independence is firmly stuck.

 

The ridiculous mismatch between votes and seats in the result last May should sound the death-knell for FPTP but we know it won't and, given how it now works for them, electoral reform is not going to be high on the SNP agenda.

[JamboX2]

There will be no indy unless a majority of people want it. Likewise the referendum. How will we know? Voting patterns and intentions will have changed. If they do not change there will be no referendum. The previous vote has been respected. There will not be another one until there are significant changes.

 

What change in voting patterns? The SNP, the party of independence, are on course to win a huge majority in a PR system. Do you therefore mean we will know when independence polls high in opinion polls? Or in a situation where the SNP only stand in an election with independence being policy page 1 of 1?

 

By your logic we could never have another referendum because we could never find a mechanism for deciding if there was any demand for it. This is the conlablib position. It's undemocratic but it has to be because democratic expression is what they are afraid of.

 

The mechanism is a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum. Why not commit to the holding of a referendum if you want a referendum? It really is that simple.

 

It's just like conlablib's continued support for the House of Lords. Totally undemocratic and unrepresentative but supported by all 3 establishment parties. It is a buffer against popular opinion.

 

Not all three parties support it. In the last parliament two of the three attempted to pass reforms which were ruined by Tory wrecking motions. They put forward - as do the Plaid Cymru, the Greens who are officially in favour of Lords reform and are of the democratic left - Lords to ensure balanced representation in the upper house. It is possible to be both of a body or institution and want it reformed. I'd sooner see the Lords abolished and replaced with an elected senate, but till that day I'd want to see as broad a range of parties nominate members to ensure its not a home of Tory lords.

 

What you must also remember is, people, voters, the electorate of Scotland will back these parties to varying degrees. They themselves will endorse their manifestos and ergo agree a referendum is not what they want to see for another five years.

 

As I've said to you, the one sure fire way to have one is for the SNP to say they will hold one. If they make it a commitment then they can hold one. That's democracy.

 

Yes supporters are democrats. The posturing on the No side shows they are not. Denying people the right to express their opinions is just not democratic. The problem they have is that a Yes vote is

virtually irreversible and NO can only lose once. Yes can keep on losing until they win. No should try to find better arguments for maintaining the union rather than trying to prevent perfectly legitimate means of democratic expression. In their democratic denial they undermine their own position as they do when insulting SNP and Yes voters. The attempts at decrying and rubbishing the SNP govt are equally baffling. We have had several years of unadventurous, steady as she goes govt, with very modest successes yet many conlablib supporters scream incompetence and corruption. The people of Scotland are not as stupid as many NO voters think they are and if No commentators continue to demean at every opportunity they will only succeed in bringing the next referendum closer.

No voters are the people of Scotland as well. Equally, no one is saying you cannot further independence as a policy. People are arguing they do not want to see a second referendum. If the SNP want to test the waters of another vote all they need do is commit to one within the next 5 years in this manifesto. What better time to hold it? The U.K. Labour Party are bitterly divided, the Tory government are weak and discredited, the Liberals are no more and the Scottish parties are in an equally paralous state of affairs. Not to mention uncertainty over our membership of the EU.

 

No can argue, and should argue, the best reason for the union is its flexibility. The ability for it to change and reshape itself quickly on the back of popular demands for change. See devolution in England, more powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The political class generally bend to the people's will. I have no doubt if there was a manifesto call for indyref2 it'd be allowed to proceed. The consequences of denying it would be greater than that of holding it.

 

On your point about the government, my main critique is their steady as she goes approach. Be bold and use the majority they've been gifted by the people to make Scotland radically better. Abolishing the council tax, democratising land ownership, radically overhauling the old way of doing public services were all there to be achieved and they didn't try. Why not learn from their predecessors that timidity won't get you very far in the long run?

 

I think you're over egging it a tad with the undemocratic chat. I agree, if people want a second referendum it should come. However, the only way that will happen is if a party with the support of the people to a majority level wins an election proposing to hold one. The SNP are not proposing to hold one so the whole point of this debate, and the question posed in the BBC leaders debate is to a large extent pointless and doesn't need debated till a second referendum is the stated policy of the SNP.

[i8hibsh]

Yoon#

 

 

no idea what that is or means (either does Google). Judging by the hash tag it is some social (ist) media pish.  I don't do social (ist) media.

[Thunderstruck]

Electoral Reform has always been an SNP policy and just because they have benefited once from the FPTP system they have stated they still want to change the system for Westminster elections.

 

Funny how FPTP was fine while Labour gained from it in Scotland for 30 years and was used to keep Nationalist MPs to a minimum, but now after one election where it suited the SNP it is now completely undemocratic and should be abolished ASAP.

You could turn that last paragraph around to suggest that it was unfair when in opposition but now the SNP are in power it is OK.

 

I don't recall saying FPTP was ever fair. If any government has had the backing of the majority of voters (maybe Blair in 97 - can't remember ) it will have been an exception to the rule.

 

Tomorrow's Constituency vote is FPTP.

 

The only PR elections that we have are for Local Government.

[Thunderstruck]

No you couldn't because the SNP still want the FPTP system scrapped they have not been influenced by the result of the election.

 

The List part balances out the FPTP system to make the parliament as close to PR as possible, if you look at the previous elections it has done a pretty fair job of it. The limitations of the Holyrood system is the regionalisation of the lists means that it is hard to make it an exact PR for the whole country.

The proof of the SNP ambition will be in their policy (if/when elected).

 

They do seem a little jittery today. Has someone been "sampling" Postal Votes, I wonder.

[JamboX2]

It is a reserved matter for Westminster/Scotland Office, nothing to do with the Scottish Government and there policy is clear and has never changed.

The new Scotland Act devolved the power over how Scottish elections are held and administered to the Scottish government and parliament.

[Boris]

The new Scotland Act devolved the power over how Scottish elections are held and administered to the Scottish government and parliament.

All well and good, but argument refers to Westminster, no?

[Thunderstruck]

All well and good, but argument refers to Westminster, no?

Both Westminster and the Constituency element for Holyrood. There is nothing now to prevent them replacing the modified d'Hondt with proper PR for Scottish elections.

[Boris]

Both Westminster and the Constituency element for Holyrood. There is nothing now to prevent them replacing the modified d'Hondt with proper PR for Scottish elections.

Indeed, although as has been stated the current method is pretty proportional AND retains the constituency link, which a lot of people like. Or at least certainly used to.

 

However, I find politics has gone beyond constituencies, and is more about individual parties, hence leaders debates, and I personally would not be against a party list system.

[JamboX2]

All well and good, but argument refers to Westminster, no?

Equally applies to Scottish parliament FPTP constituencies. Balls in their park.

[Boris]

Equally applies to Scottish parliament FPTP constituencies. Balls in their park.

Not really as the second vote counterbalances it and proportions things out, not perfectly, but not too badly. The Scottish Parliament currently has an electoral system that is, therefore, proportional. Does that really need changed? I'd be happy if Westminster elections used the same.

[JamboX2]

If they just made it a national list system then we would get PR, however you have to wonder why Labour didn't want that in the first place??

Because the system used now, AMS, was a compromise reached between all the parties to the constitutional convention. I think the Liberals wanted STV. Wasn't so much Labour's call. The 1998 Act was the product of the constitutional convention.

 

Personally, as someone who's grown up since through devolution and has lived with the parliament, it's maybe time it reviewed how it works and how it relates to people. Things have changed a lot since 1999. I'd think the parliament should review its own internal mechanisms but the people should get a greater say in who sits in Parliament. I'd look at STV as a new voting method and definitely to things like recall of an MSP.

[JamboX2]

STV is far to complex and unnecessary when making the AMS list national would make the result true PR, the % of notes received would match the Members elected.

Used in council elections by the people with little confusion. A straight list or a set of regional lists across the nation may well be more clear cut, but the choice offered voters is key as well.

[Boris]

STV isn't really proportional, it's compromise.

 

I'd rather have the current system than STV. No wonder the liberals wanted it back then though, labour second vote and Tory second vote rather than either of the old firm voting for the other second preference!

 

As I've said before, a party could get 30% of the overall votes cast and not win a seat!

[JamboX2]

STV isn't really proportional, it's compromise.

 

I'd rather have the current system than STV. No wonder the liberals wanted it back then though, labour second vote and Tory second vote rather than either of the old firm voting for the other second preference!

 

As I've said before, a party could get 30% of the overall votes cast and not win a seat!

Well, a set of regional lists?

[coconut doug]

What change in voting patterns? The SNP, the party of independence, are on course to win a huge majority in a PR system. Do you therefore mean we will know when independence polls high in opinion polls? Or in a situation where the SNP only stand in an election with independence being policy page 1 of 1?

 

 

The mechanism is a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum. Why not commit to the holding of a referendum if you want a referendum? It really is that simple.

 

 

Not all three parties support it. In the last parliament two of the three attempted to pass reforms which were ruined by Tory wrecking motions. They put forward - as do the Plaid Cymru, the Greens who are officially in favour of Lords reform and are of the democratic left - Lords to ensure balanced representation in the upper house. It is possible to be both of a body or institution and want it reformed. I'd sooner see the Lords abolished and replaced with an elected senate, but till that day I'd want to see as broad a range of parties nominate members to ensure its not a home of Tory lords.

 

What you must also remember is, people, voters, the electorate of Scotland will back these parties to varying degrees. They themselves will endorse their manifestos and ergo agree a referendum is not what they want to see for another five years.

 

As I've said to you, the one sure fire way to have one is for the SNP to say they will hold one. If they make it a commitment then they can hold one. That's democracy.

 

 

No voters are the people of Scotland as well. Equally, no one is saying you cannot further independence as a policy. People are arguing they do not want to see a second referendum. If the SNP want to test the waters of another vote all they need do is commit to one within the next 5 years in this manifesto. What better time to hold it? The U.K. Labour Party are bitterly divided, the Tory government are weak and discredited, the Liberals are no more and the Scottish parties are in an equally paralous state of affairs. Not to mention uncertainty over our membership of the EU.

 

No can argue, and should argue, the best reason for the union is its flexibility. The ability for it to change and reshape itself quickly on the back of popular demands for change. See devolution in England, more powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The political class generally bend to the people's will. I have no doubt if there was a manifesto call for indyref2 it'd be allowed to proceed. The consequences of denying it would be greater than that of holding it.

 

On your point about the government, my main critique is their steady as she goes approach. Be bold and use the majority they've been gifted by the people to make Scotland radically better. Abolishing the council tax, democratising land ownership, radically overhauling the old way of doing public services were all there to be achieved and they didn't try. Why not learn from their predecessors that timidity won't get you very far in the long run?

 

I think you're over egging it a tad with the undemocratic chat. I agree, if people want a second referendum it should come. However, the only way that will happen is if a party with the support of the people to a majority level wins an election proposing to hold one. The SNP are not proposing to hold one so the whole point of this debate, and the question posed in the BBC leaders debate is to a large extent pointless and doesn't need debated till a second referendum is the stated policy of the SNP.

Disingenuous as ever. I'm not "overegging the undemocratic chat". If you are not prepared to allow a party with a mandate to carry out it's policies you are risking the fundamentals of our system. If you don't recognise my mandate why should I recognise yours? Even worse a refusal to accept the outcome of any future referendum. This is worse than the gerrymandering tactics employed in Northern Ireland.

 

 As is often the case the Tories were prepared to accept a second referendum and to abide by the result. Basic democracy, you might have thought. Enter Kezia with her Labour Party sense of entitlement and disregard for other views and basic fairness. I am not sure how she and the Labour party arrived at their decision, not to accept a referendum or the result it brings, but actually i think that Kezia did not understand the question, or the implications of her answer. I do believe her to be very poor communicator and a particularly bad listener so it is entirely possible she said something she did not mean to say. Something she will have to rescind if she remains leader.

 

It is also possible that the Labour Party was once again doing the bidding of the Tories. Davidson and her group would not have had the gall to make such a statement knowing it would be likely to get shot down from all angles. Better get Labour to do it and the free ride that goes with it in the Scottish press. Then the Tories can support Labour and make it look like a perfectly sensible policy or if the SNP react to it get the debate bogged down on a second referendum.  

 

Labour have form on being the Tory shock troops. They did it with tuition fees, prescription charges, bombing Middle eastern countries, banking regulation, corporation tax, Bedroom tax and other things. Why would the Tories not use them to subjugate democracy in Scotland? It must be fantastic for the Tories to know that Labour will do almost anything it wants, things the Tories themselves would never have the brass neck to attempt.

 

The house of Lords is still there. Labour promised to abolish it but didn't. Even the Tories can't justify it. You can reform it if you like but until it is democratic, it will have no legitimacy. If you don't disband it when you have the power to do so then you support it. To be told I'm overegging my undemocratic concerns in the context of Lablibcon's  refusal to accept a popular vote whilst they are maintaining the house of Lords is crazy. To listen to concerns about the unrepresentative nature of the Scottish parliament and all this one party state nonsense is top order hypocrisy.

 

The union does not offer flexibility, quite the contrary. We have a sound electoral system in Scotland, the U.K. does not, and shows no sign of changing. Change means an end to the duopoly and Labcon don't want that. We have little flexibility because we are tethered to a raging, psychopathic bull of a system that pulls us any way it wants and that includes refusing to accept the result of a vote in any future referendum.

[JamboX2]

Disingenuous as ever. I'm not "overegging the undemocratic chat". If you are not prepared to allow a party with a mandate to carry out it's policies you are risking the fundamentals of our system. If you don't recognise my mandate why should I recognise yours? Even worse a refusal to accept the outcome of any future referendum. This is worse than the gerrymandering tactics employed in Northern Ireland.

 

No one is refusing to acknowledge a mandate for a referendum. The SNP aren't even asking for a mandate to hold one. It's a moot point. Why this has been such an issue from the off is actually quite maddening. The SNP aren't seeking a mandate to hold a referendum. The manifesto does not commit them to holding a referendum. Why it has been asked of non-independence supporting parties f they would allow it if it was is even odder.

 

The point is simple, if the SNP want to hold a vote on independence, then put it in the manifesto and say it is a key manifesto commitment. In my view, having read their manifesto, there's no commitment to a second independence referendum and so they seek no mandate for it. End of.

 

As is often the case the Tories were prepared to accept a second referendum and to abide by the result. Basic democracy, you might have thought.

 

Ruth has not accepted that. She is barking mad about not holding one. In fact she's staked her party's success on opposing it from re-occurring.

 

Enter Kezia with her Labour Party sense of entitlement and disregard for other views and basic fairness. I am not sure how she and the Labour party arrived at their decision, not to accept a referendum or the result it brings, but actually i think that Kezia did not understand the question, or the implications of her answer. I do believe her to be very poor communicator and a particularly bad listener so it is entirely possible she said something she did not mean to say. Something she will have to rescind if she remains leader.

 

Quote?

 

If independence wins in a second referendum we all move on. As you say it only need win once. Which is the bizarre thing about these out votes - we leave thhe EU that's that. We leave the UK that's that. But we stay in, folk wanting out keep countering on. As is their right. However, surely the opposite applies. If we leave the EU I'll be campaigning to go back in! But I'd be accused of disrespecting a democratic result in Scotland at the moment.

 

It is also possible that the Labour Party was once again doing the bidding of the Tories. Davidson and her group would not have had the gall to make such a statement knowing it would be likely to get shot down from all angles. Better get Labour to do it and the free ride that goes with it in the Scottish press. Then the Tories can support Labour and make it look like a perfectly sensible policy or if the SNP react to it get the debate bogged down on a second referendum.

 

Do you think there's a unionist cabal?

"Here, Kez go and say this... Then me and Willie will say that it's a great idea. All for one and that..."

 

Labour have form on being the Tory shock troops. They did it with tuition fees, prescription charges, bombing Middle eastern countries, banking regulation, corporation tax, Bedroom tax and other things. Why would the Tories not use them to subjugate democracy in Scotland? It must be fantastic for the Tories to know that Labour will do almost anything it wants, things the Tories themselves would never have the brass neck to attempt.

 

 

Labour are Tory shock troops? Christ. The SNP are heirs to Blair in tone and policy. How on earth do you come to these conclusions.

 

Devolution allowed Scottish Labour, remember we are scots in Scotland, to not impose tuition fees, brought about free personal care, free bus passes, new schools, smoking bans and massively overdue land reform. The SNP were happy to acquiesce on corporation tax (remember 3% less than the UK?), banking regulation (deregulation of the mortgage market was a Salmond idea that Osbourne supported and Brown refused to countenance), the SNP were dragged into the chamber to effectively end the bedroom tax in Scotland by the Greens and Labour a few years ago.

 

The SNP and Labour are not saints and have both not lived up to expectations. You claim not to be a die hard SNP supporter. However, you increasingly sound like SNP head office.

 

Labour screwed up a golden chance to radically change Britain, big changes were made - devolution, human rights, international development, schools and hospital spending increased, pensioner poverty and child poverty radically reduced and investment in infrastructure yes - but the Iraq war is a massive stain on the record. The failure to be stricter on the banks before the crash. The complacency and ineptitude in managing their vote in Scotland. The short sightedness of their approach in some of their approach to tax.

 

I can accept fallibility and the lack of ability to see into the future. I don't think all the bad things of Scotland can be levelled at the SNP, nor on Labour.

 

Can you accept SNP fallibility here?

 

The house of Lords is still there. Labour promised to abolish it but didn't. Even the Tories can't justify it. You can reform it if you like but until it is democratic, it will have no legitimacy. If you don't disband it when you have the power to do so then you support it. To be told I'm overegging my undemocratic concerns in the context of Lablibcon's refusal to accept a popular vote whilst they are maintaining the house of Lords is crazy. To listen to concerns about the unrepresentative nature of the Scottish parliament and all this one party state nonsense is top order hypocrisy.

I've not said to you here that I think we are moving to a one party state. We are moving to a period of SNP dominance like that of Labour in the 1980s and 1990s in Scotland. However, that wasn't healthy then and it's not healthy now. Yes AMS is a PR system which is more proportional than Westminster. But it's not a much more proportional system. FPTP like the House of Lords is totally out of date. We live in a multi-party democracy not the 19th century and two parties. Constituencies and FPTP are not conducive to modern voting patterns and we should change our voting system in Scotland to remove that fptp element.

 

I'd abolish the lords tomorrow and replace it with a senate. The day after I'd get rid of any FPTP voting in the UK and let the people choose a new way of voting.

 

The union does not offer flexibility, quite the contrary. We have a sound electoral system in Scotland, the U.K. does not, and shows no sign of changing. Change means an end to the duopoly and Labcon don't want that. We have little flexibility because we are tethered to a raging, psychopathic bull of a system that pulls us any way it wants and that includes refusing to accept the result of a vote in any future referendum.

If independence wins a vote of the people I bet you a whole pound sterling we become independent and the result is respected.

 

No flexibility? The U.K. Parliament has agreed to more and more powers going to Holyrood than Holyrood almost every term it's sat since 1999. Transport powers in 2003-07 were expanded, Calman, Edinburgh Agreement and now Smith. Equally, the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies have seen more powers devolved to them. The parliament has amended its acts where the courts declare a s.4 incompatibility under the HRA and the Lords (regardless of the democratic element) has kicked the current government back a number of times of late.

 

I agree, the duopoly stinks. That's why I support electoral reform. In Scotland we've a parliament built to cope with pluralistic politics with a parliament dominated by one party in terms of the number of seats it has and the resulting impact on the allocation of seats on committees and in who the presiding officer is.

 

Our system in Scotland has major failings which need corrected - the petitions committee is backwards in comparison to Westminster's, the First Minister unlike the PM rarely has to attend a committee hearing on her activities, the whip system at Holyrood is more restrictive and the structure of the debates and how time is allocated to chamber business extremely restricts the scope of debate. Parliament in Scotland sits for 3 days a week. That should be increased to 4. Two out of those 4 days should be long days with business running into 7 at night to allow longer debates, more detailed submissions by MSPs and more free flowing debates than we have.

 

We have a great young parliament, but we have got up to near 20 years of it and maybe just maybe we should start to reassess the good and the bad of what we have. To not do so is to replicate the wrongs of Westminster.

[coconut doug]

No one is refusing to acknowledge a mandate for a referendum. The SNP aren't even asking for a mandate to hold one. It's a moot point. Why this has been such an issue from the off is actually quite maddening. The SNP aren't seeking a mandate to hold a referendum. The manifesto does not commit them to holding a referendum. Why it has been asked of non-independence supporting parties f they would allow it if it was is even odder.

 

The point is simple, if the SNP want to hold a vote on independence, then put it in the manifesto and say it is a key manifesto commitment. In my view, having read their manifesto, there's no commitment to a second independence referendum and so they seek no mandate for it. End of.

 

 

Ruth has not accepted that. She is barking mad about not holding one. In fact she's staked her party's success on opposing it from re-occurring.

 

 

Quote?

 

If independence wins in a second referendum we all move on. As you say it only need win once. Which is the bizarre thing about these out votes - we leave thhe EU that's that. We leave the UK that's that. But we stay in, folk wanting out keep countering on. As is their right. However, surely the opposite applies. If we leave the EU I'll be campaigning to go back in! But I'd be accused of disrespecting a democratic result in Scotland at the moment.

 

 

Do you think there's a unionist cabal?

"Here, Kez go and say this... Then me and Willie will say that it's a great idea. All for one and that..."

 

 

 

Labour are Tory shock troops? Christ. The SNP are heirs to Blair in tone and policy. How on earth do you come to these conclusions.

 

Devolution allowed Scottish Labour, remember we are scots in Scotland, to not impose tuition fees, brought about free personal care, free bus passes, new schools, smoking bans and massively overdue land reform. The SNP were happy to acquiesce on corporation tax (remember 3% less than the UK?), banking regulation (deregulation of the mortgage market was a Salmond idea that Osbourne supported and Brown refused to countenance), the SNP were dragged into the chamber to effectively end the bedroom tax in Scotland by the Greens and Labour a few years ago.

 

The SNP and Labour are not saints and have both not lived up to expectations. You claim not to be a die hard SNP supporter. However, you increasingly sound like SNP head office.

 

Labour screwed up a golden chance to radically change Britain, big changes were made - devolution, human rights, international development, schools and hospital spending increased, pensioner poverty and child poverty radically reduced and investment in infrastructure yes - but the Iraq war is a massive stain on the record. The failure to be stricter on the banks before the crash. The complacency and ineptitude in managing their vote in Scotland. The short sightedness of their approach in some of their approach to tax.

 

I can accept fallibility and the lack of ability to see into the future. I don't think all the bad things of Scotland can be levelled at the SNP, nor on Labour.

 

Can you accept SNP fallibility here?

 

 

I've not said to you here that I think we are moving to a one party state. We are moving to a period of SNP dominance like that of Labour in the 1980s and 1990s in Scotland. However, that wasn't healthy then and it's not healthy now. Yes AMS is a PR system which is more proportional than Westminster. But it's not a much more proportional system. FPTP like the House of Lords is totally out of date. We live in a multi-party democracy not the 19th century and two parties. Constituencies and FPTP are not conducive to modern voting patterns and we should change our voting system in Scotland to remove that fptp element.

 

I'd abolish the lords tomorrow and replace it with a senate. The day after I'd get rid of any FPTP voting in the UK and let the people choose a new way of voting.

 

 

If independence wins a vote of the people I bet you a whole pound sterling we become independent and the result is respected.

 

No flexibility? The U.K. Parliament has agreed to more and more powers going to Holyrood than Holyrood almost every term it's sat since 1999. Transport powers in 2003-07 were expanded, Calman, Edinburgh Agreement and now Smith. Equally, the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies have seen more powers devolved to them. The parliament has amended its acts where the courts declare a s.4 incompatibility under the HRA and the Lords (regardless of the democratic element) has kicked the current government back a number of times of late.

 

I agree, the duopoly stinks. That's why I support electoral reform. In Scotland we've a parliament built to cope with pluralistic politics with a parliament dominated by one party in terms of the number of seats it has and the resulting impact on the allocation of seats on committees and in who the presiding officer is.

 

Our system in Scotland has major failings which need corrected - the petitions committee is backwards in comparison to Westminster's, the First Minister unlike the PM rarely has to attend a committee hearing on her activities, the whip system at Holyrood is more restrictive and the structure of the debates and how time is allocated to chamber business extremely restricts the scope of debate. Parliament in Scotland sits for 3 days a week. That should be increased to 4. Two out of those 4 days should be long days with business running into 7 at night to allow longer debates, more detailed submissions by MSPs and more free flowing debates than we have.

 

We have a great young parliament, but we have got up to near 20 years of it and maybe just maybe we should start to reassess the good and the bad of what we have. To not do so is to replicate the wrongs of Westminster.

Tories and Labour are refusing to acknowledge both the mandate and the result. I've posted quotes and links. It was mentioned again tonight on Scotland tonight. It is an unacceptable stance and will have to be changed soon. It is anything but moot, that is why Labconlib bring it up at every opportunity. You've already said you disagree with Labour's stance on this, had you forgotten? The tory and Labour positions are identical with Labour having led the way.

 

Changing powers is not flexibility, it is only an attempt to hold off the inevitable. They tried to screw us for ?7billion a few weeks ago. If they were flexible they would bump HoL and fptp but they wont because the only thing that matters is their narrow interests and maintaining their ability to rob the state and the people in it for as much as they can e.g. Green, Tax dodgers, Bankers and privatisation of health service. Once again started by Labour but will be finished by the Tories. 

 

We don't have a one party state and your notion that SNP dominance is not healthy is just prejudice. Our system is very healthy because it reflect the views of Scottish people. The system we have is highly proportional, just a few posts ago you were praising it now you say "Yes AMS is a PR system which is more proportional than Westminster. But it's not a much more proportional system." It is massively more proportional but it is not perfect because no system is. The SNP have approximately 50% of the seats with approx. 50% of the vote. Another system is not guaranteed or even likely to beat that.

 

Labour introduced tuition fees, prescription charges, refused to put up taxes for the rich from a historic low point, reduced corporation tax, privatised a hospital, thought up the bedroom tax, bombed Iraq, deregulated the city and many more. All things the Tories wanted to do but didn't have the balls for. The SNP have no role to play here. They didn't do any of these things and were usually on the right side of the argument. Labour have betrayed the working class and may never be elected again. They haven't bottomed out yet. 

[aussieh]

Voting against your country? Not being a moron I did not see Sept 14 as England v Scotland. I'd say Wales etc too but let's cut to the chase, bitter people like aussieh see it as only a Scotland England thing. I really feel sorry for you. You have major issues.

Aye, ok.

Ive read your input on the Hillsborough verdict.

[aussieh]

No one is refusing to acknowledge a mandate for a referendum. The SNP aren't even asking for a mandate to hold one. It's a moot point. Why this has been such an issue from the off is actually quite maddening. The SNP aren't seeking a mandate to hold a referendum. The manifesto does not commit them to holding a referendum. Why it has been asked of non-independence supporting parties f they would allow it if it was is even odder.

 

The point is simple, if the SNP want to hold a vote on independence, then put it in the manifesto and say it is a key manifesto commitment. In my view, having read their manifesto, there's no commitment to a second independence referendum and so they seek no mandate for it. End of.

 

 

Ruth has not accepted that. She is barking mad about not holding one. In fact she's staked her party's success on opposing it from re-occurring.

 

 

Quote?

 

If independence wins in a second referendum we all move on. As you say it only need win once. Which is the bizarre thing about these out votes - we leave thhe EU that's that. We leave the UK that's that. But we stay in, folk wanting out keep countering on. As is their right. However, surely the opposite applies. If we leave the EU I'll be campaigning to go back in! But I'd be accused of disrespecting a democratic result in Scotland at the moment.

 

 

Do you think there's a unionist cabal?

"Here, Kez go and say this... Then me and Willie will say that it's a great idea. All for one and that..."

 

 

 

Labour are Tory shock troops? Christ. The SNP are heirs to Blair in tone and policy. How on earth do you come to these conclusions.

 

Devolution allowed Scottish Labour, remember we are scots in Scotland, to not impose tuition fees, brought about free personal care, free bus passes, new schools, smoking bans and massively overdue land reform. The SNP were happy to acquiesce on corporation tax (remember 3% less than the UK?), banking regulation (deregulation of the mortgage market was a Salmond idea that Osbourne supported and Brown refused to countenance), the SNP were dragged into the chamber to effectively end the bedroom tax in Scotland by the Greens and Labour a few years ago.

 

The SNP and Labour are not saints and have both not lived up to expectations. You claim not to be a die hard SNP supporter. However, you increasingly sound like SNP head office.

 

Labour screwed up a golden chance to radically change Britain, big changes were made - devolution, human rights, international development, schools and hospital spending increased, pensioner poverty and child poverty radically reduced and investment in infrastructure yes - but the Iraq war is a massive stain on the record. The failure to be stricter on the banks before the crash. The complacency and ineptitude in managing their vote in Scotland. The short sightedness of their approach in some of their approach to tax.

 

I can accept fallibility and the lack of ability to see into the future. I don't think all the bad things of Scotland can be levelled at the SNP, nor on Labour.

 

Can you accept SNP fallibility here?

 

 

I've not said to you here that I think we are moving to a one party state. We are moving to a period of SNP dominance like that of Labour in the 1980s and 1990s in Scotland. However, that wasn't healthy then and it's not healthy now. Yes AMS is a PR system which is more proportional than Westminster. But it's not a much more proportional system. FPTP like the House of Lords is totally out of date. We live in a multi-party democracy not the 19th century and two parties. Constituencies and FPTP are not conducive to modern voting patterns and we should change our voting system in Scotland to remove that fptp element.

 

I'd abolish the lords tomorrow and replace it with a senate. The day after I'd get rid of any FPTP voting in the UK and let the people choose a new way of voting.

 

 

If independence wins a vote of the people I bet you a whole pound sterling we become independent and the result is respected.

 

No flexibility? The U.K. Parliament has agreed to more and more powers going to Holyrood than Holyrood almost every term it's sat since 1999. Transport powers in 2003-07 were expanded, Calman, Edinburgh Agreement and now Smith. Equally, the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies have seen more powers devolved to them. The parliament has amended its acts where the courts declare a s.4 incompatibility under the HRA and the Lords (regardless of the democratic element) has kicked the current government back a number of times of late.

 

I agree, the duopoly stinks. That's why I support electoral reform. In Scotland we've a parliament built to cope with pluralistic politics with a parliament dominated by one party in terms of the number of seats it has and the resulting impact on the allocation of seats on committees and in who the presiding officer is.

 

Our system in Scotland has major failings which need corrected - the petitions committee is backwards in comparison to Westminster's, the First Minister unlike the PM rarely has to attend a committee hearing on her activities, the whip system at Holyrood is more restrictive and the structure of the debates and how time is allocated to chamber business extremely restricts the scope of debate. Parliament in Scotland sits for 3 days a week. That should be increased to 4. Two out of those 4 days should be long days with business running into 7 at night to allow longer debates, more detailed submissions by MSPs and more free flowing debates than we have.

 

We have a great young parliament, but we have got up to near 20 years of it and maybe just maybe we should start to reassess the good and the bad of what we have. To not do so is to replicate the wrongs of Westminster.

WM agreed to more, oh thanks very fecking much.

Ho about we have a shot of the UK parliament and England can have our powers.

All hail FM Nicola Sturgeon.

Slab are dead.

 

 

 

SNP/SNP rule the unionists of Scotland.

[i8hibsh]

WM agreed to more, oh thanks very fecking much.

Ho about we have a shot of the UK parliament and England can have our powers.

All hail FM Nicola Sturgeon.

Slab are dead.

 

 

 

SNP/SNP rule the unionists of Scotland.

I am convinced you are on the wind up and to think that "England have our powers" also shows you up as not being very bright.

[Boris]

Well, a set of regional lists?

I'd be fine with that.

[i8hibsh]

Aye, ok.

Ive read your input on the Hillsborough verdict.

Not too sure they are important on this thread tho.

[aussieh]

I don't believe I ever gave my verdict tbh as it does not matter. I just happened to have a few questions.

 

Not too sure it is important on this thread tho.

People in glass house, relevance to the thread.

 

 

Its about who controls it, the Tories showed how much the union matters during the General Election with his anti Scots propaganda.

 

Simple Question.

What would England do, if the SNP were in coalition with Labour. Overruling a bigger number of Tory MPs by 1.

[JamboX2]

Tories and Labour are refusing to acknowledge both the mandate and the result. I've posted quotes and links. It was mentioned again tonight on Scotland tonight. It is an unacceptable stance and will have to be changed soon. It is anything but moot, that is why Labconlib bring it up at every opportunity. You've already said you disagree with Labour's stance on this, had you forgotten? The tory and Labour positions are identical with Labour having led the way.

 

Changing powers is not flexibility, it is only an attempt to hold off the inevitable. They tried to screw us for ?7billion a few weeks ago. If they were flexible they would bump HoL and fptp but they wont because the only thing that matters is their narrow interests and maintaining their ability to rob the state and the people in it for as much as they can e.g. Green, Tax dodgers, Bankers and privatisation of health service. Once again started by Labour but will be finished by the Tories.

 

We don't have a one party state and your notion that SNP dominance is not healthy is just prejudice. Our system is very healthy because it reflect the views of Scottish people. The system we have is highly proportional, just a few posts ago you were praising it now you say "Yes AMS is a PR system which is more proportional than Westminster. But it's not a much more proportional system." It is massively more proportional but it is not perfect because no system is. The SNP have approximately 50% of the seats with approx. 50% of the vote. Another system is not guaranteed or even likely to beat that.

 

Labour introduced tuition fees, prescription charges, refused to put up taxes for the rich from a historic low point, reduced corporation tax, privatised a hospital, thought up the bedroom tax, bombed Iraq, deregulated the city and many more. All things the Tories wanted to do but didn't have the balls for. The SNP have no role to play here. They didn't do any of these things and were usually on the right side of the argument. Labour have betrayed the working class and may never be elected again. They haven't bottomed out yet.

Is Lablibcon this years Red Tories?

 

If the SNP wanted a radically more redistributive society with more progressive taxation and more efforts to curb corporations avoiding tax we'd have seen such an approach in their manifesto. Equally they'd have changed their views on corporation tax cuts in Scotland if they had that power and wouldn't have committed to cutting APD by the levels they want to (not overly green either on that).

 

They've not. They've stuck to the middle of the road and to the Blairism they adopted under Salmond.

 

The SNP were not vociferous opponents of market deregulation. They were not vociferous opponents of the bedroom tax when you consider the reluctance to do what was needed to mitigate it in Scotland. They are not opposed to the use of private contracts and using private providers in our nation's NHS and social care systems. They don't want to raise tax on the well off and have maintained a regressive council tax freeze for near 10 years.

 

Tuition fees were removed by the Dewar/McLeish administration in the early days of devolution.

 

As I've said, AMS incorporates an outdated element called FPTP. Its an archaic voting system which is suited to two party democracies not multiparty democracy. How can you not understand that just because it is more proportional than WM does not make it a hugely better system. The SNP won a majority on 45% of the vote last time on it. They won at Westminster something like 90% of seats on a 50% vote share. The idea any form or use of FPTP can be defended is wrong. You claim use is support on the lords. I assume you therefore consider a tory majority at WM on FPTP is acceptable given they've a third of the casted votes?

 

Dominance in a pluralistic society is unhealthy. Labour, Tory, SNP, Liberal, Green dominance is unhealthy. Coalition majorities good. Minority government good. Parties represent varying views and longterm policies must be shaped bt consent of all sides.

 

If the situation is as wicked as you claim then we'd have ran out of the union. Frankly, its not and a lot of the issues in Scotland can be laid at the door of our own parliament now. I assume you mean the new funding mechanism... Did Swinney not opt for more cash now rather than a more suitable funding mechanism for the long term which accounted for Scotland's more ageing demographic?

 

Again, who denies you the right to have a second vote? Opposition parties scrapping over the unionist vote or the party of independence not committing to testing the resolve of these parties and their increased support by offering people a second vote.

 

They've not committed to it. Its not a major issue here.

[Tazio]

My feeling is that the SNP dominance wouldn't be as much of voting was compulsory. They have through various means created a very active support in the under 40's which the other parties don't have.

[Rab87]

Still undecided, heading to the polls after work....

[AlphonseCapone]

Still undecided, heading to the polls after work....

 

Out of interest, how do you get to the day of the election still undecided and how will you eventually make a judgement?

[Rab87]

Out of interest, how do you get to the day of the election still undecided and how will you eventually make a judgement?

 

Ideally, I'd prefer a minority SNP government, with perhaps a deal done with the Greens. Unlikely to happen, but I am not too keen on the stance the SNP are taking of late. I'm growing a bit weary of the cult status SNP are achieving at the moment. I just find some peoples unwavering support to a political party a bit weird, and I'm struggling to make sense of it.

 

With that in mind, I'm not too sure where my vote would be best placed.

[siegementality]

If Scotland ever becomes independent there will be one less Scotsman in it as I'll not be staying here.

[TheTeamForMe]

If Scotland ever becomes independent there will be one less Scotsman in it as I'll not be staying here.

where would you go?

[ToadKiller Dog]

If Scotland ever becomes independent there will be one less Scotsman in it as I'll not be staying here.

I imagine there would plenty immigrants willing to take your place .

[siegementality]

I'll give you a lift to the airport.

You're OK. You couldn't get me there quick enough.

[siegementality]

where would you go?

Latvia

[TheTeamForMe]

Latvia

 

Great choice! 

[siegementality]

I imagine there would plenty immigrants willing to take your place .

Surely not, they'll all have moved in with Herr Sturgeon.

[i8hibsh]

Surely not, they'll all have moved in with Herr Sturgeon.

 

 

She must have at least 10 Syrians living with her, infact wait a minute she was being insincere to win favour.

 

Did Bob Geldoff end up taking any in as he promised? Of course not.

 

Bunch of c words.

[siegementality]

She must have at least 10 Syrians living with her, infact wait a minute she was being insincere to win favour.

 

Did Bob Geldoff end up taking any in as he promised? Of course not.

 

Bunch of c words.

To be fair she'd need to make some space by getting rid of a few wardrobes of her designer gear. Still we are all in it together eh.

[Thunderstruck]

If Scotland ever becomes independent there will be one less Scotsman in it as I'll not be staying here.

Looks like you will be here for for the foreseeable future.