The Scottish Politics thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Maths not my strong point, but this must make it hard to get a big majority? - Maybe that's the point
Click to expand...
That is the point, though initially the thought was it would prevent perpetual Labour governments. The system has only ever been ‘broken’ once when the SNP won a majority, every other time as the last session power has needed 2nd parties for support.
If they win a majority this time it would be the second time they have broken the system. More likely they will need Green support again though.
Although if they are only 1 or 2 short there may be other options for partners on a policy by policy basis.
 
Coatigan said:
It was certainly designed to prevent a majority, not sure I beleive the second part myself but who can say.
Click to expand...
I just did. What other reason could there be? Devolution was feared to be the vital step to Independence, to get support for allowing it was a political system aimed to promote coalition and take the edge off a spear. In the last 14 years SNP has been the biggest party but suffers in the List as a consequence.

The strategy now, well I always advocated it, was to wait until Brexit bites, Labour nationally crumbled and even if it ever gets elected it will be Tory Lite. We have seen that today, now we need to ask Scottish Labour voters to make a choice. Either vote for Indy then rejuvenate themselves after it. Or, vote No and condemn Scotland to never ending Tory rule. No one who has ever been in the LP can ever in all conscience vote to keep Tories in power. If enough if them do, we win. The key now is not to go for it for at least a year. Stand back and watch Labour implode, wait for the Brexit hammer to fall some more, then ask Labour up here, what are you going to do now? That woukd be how I woukd play it.

I also firmly believe all left leaning people in the UK should support us. If we manage it and implement progressive and fairer policies it will fire imputus into the Left down there to say, it can be done. If we don't win Indy and create a fairer society the whole island is fucked for everyone apart from the Tories.

Labour voters are, or should be, our main target to reason with. I think it can be done. A swing at the last Indy vote of 239,000 votes and we woukd have won. That number should be achievable next one.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
It is a Hybrid system. 129 seats in total. 73 consticuency seats and 56 regional seats.

we get two votes.

the 73 are flat out FPTP and the first vote. They are what is being announced just now.

the 56 additional are elected via the second vote and are grouped into 8 bigger regions, each having 7 seats. This is the 'PR' element.

I put that under quotation marks, as it isnt true PR. It is adjusted PR. because the votes a party get within that region, are lessened by dividing them by the number of constituency seats won + 1. It effectively punishes a party doing well and gives others another chance. That isnt a complaint, just the best way i can think of putting it. So a party with say 150,000 regional votes can be pipped to that seat by a party with 10,000 votes if that party has won 0 constuency seats, as they keep all 10,000 votes which dont get divided. For example snp's 47% of regional votes gave them only 4 seats last election, while the tories with 22% got 22 regional seats. As the SNP won far more seats at constituency level.


The more a party wins at constuency level, the less theyl get at a regional. And vice versa.

make sense?
Click to expand...
Yes, I mean no, I mean.....
Who thinks this is a good idea.
I mean I’m all for PR, we have it, and that’s not it.
I’m assuming you still only get one candidate to vote for in the regional second vote. You then use this system that seems undemocratic to me, to handicap the race, so to speak.
A truer PR system gives you a multi seat constituency with a full list of candidates to vote for in preferential order. You use as many preferences as you care to exercise and a quota for being elected is arrived at based on the total votes in the region.
When a candidate passes the quota they are deemed elected and their surplus is distributed proportionally to their second preferences.
You can get down to second, third or even occasionally fourth counts to fill all seats in large multi seated constituencies but the spread of parties elected properly represents the way the electorate voted.

I’m sure you knew that already, so sorry for sounding like I’m preaching, but to me your PR system sounds less Democratic than the FPTP part, which itself is not truly representative, in my opinion.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Yes, I mean no, I mean.....
Who thinks this is a good idea.
I mean I’m all for PR, we have it, and that’s not it.
I’m assuming you still only get one candidate to vote for in the regional second vote. You then use this system that seems undemocratic to me, to handicap the race, so to speak.
A truer PR system gives you a multi seat constituency with a full list of candidates to vote for in preferential order. You use as many preferences as you care to exercise and a quota for being elected is arrived at based on the total votes in the region.
When a candidate passes the quota they are deemed elected and their surplus is distributed proportionally to their second preferences.
You can get down to second, third or even occasionally fourth counts to fill all seats in large multi seated constituencies but the spread of parties elected properly represents the way the electorate voted.

I’m sure you knew that already, so sorry for sounding like I’m preaching, but to me your PR system sounds less Democratic than the FPTP part, which itself is not truly representative, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes I did know that, and agree it would be more proportionately representational but would also have to do away with the fptp part.

It is ultimately designed to limit chances of an outright a majority, and it is what it is. The reasons for that, broader discussion, see MP's and BP's posts above. The snp have certainly benefited. But in some ways it is also designed to promote smaller parties and give them a chance. The SNP certainly benefited from it in their first term in power. The Greens benefitted from it too and will again. I don't think it is great, but it is what it is. Still think it is better than the GE in the sense it is at least a bit more representative.
 
Magicpole said:
I think the win here was probably down to me too. :) As for voting for Tory rule from London, this is a question for Scottish Labour voters. If they choose Tories, they aren't Labour as I knew it. They will be fucking serfs voting for a feudal system that sees no power given to Scotland.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe the bbc talking about tactical voting in Scotland. If the Labour vote had migrated to Tory, the SNP would have been beaten.
 
Coatigan said:
Yes I did know that, and agree it would be more proportionately representational but would also have to do away with the fptp part.

It is ultimately designed to limit chances of an outright a majority, and it is what it is. The reasons for that, broader discussion, see MP's and BP's posts above. The snp have certainly benefited. But in some ways it is also designed to promote smaller parties and give them a chance. The SNP certainly benefited from it in their first term in power. The Greens benefitted from it too and will again. I don't think it is great, but it is what it is. Still think it is better than the GE in the sense it is at least a bit more representative.
Click to expand...
If I was SNP, the first thing I would look to do is reform your election system.
Replacing FPTP with true PR in multi seated constituencies is far more representative of what the public actually vote for.
It does benefit smaller parties and Independents also who quite often pick up 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences, especially where there is a big rejection of your main parties, i.e. Tory or Labour.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I can’t believe the bbc talking about tactical voting in Scotland. If the Labour vote had migrated to Tory, the SNP would have been beaten.
Click to expand...
Thousands did each way. Jackson Carlot, increased majority with some Labour voters, Jackie Baillie, increased man with Tories voting for her. The majority of Labour voters won't vote Tory ever. That's the group we need to convince to vote Indy then have a go after it.
 
Time to relax now, let your hair down, pour a drink, maybe have a sing song, have a good night's kip and wait for the rest of the count tomorrow.

Or, get fucking hammered all through the nigh , sleep till about four, wake up with a mouth a camel has obviously shat in, a head that can't be tilted a single millimetre, argue about who finished the fucking bacon, lay on the couch and await death.

Eachy Peachy really.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
If I was SNP, the first thing I would look to do is reform your election system.
Replacing FPTP with true PR in multi seated constituencies is far more representative of what the public actually vote for.
It does benefit smaller parties and Independents also who quite often pick up 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences, especially where there is a big rejection of your main parties, i.e. Tory or Labour.
Click to expand...

Not sure they (or anyone) can. I don't know the specific terms of devolution, but I think the make-up and system is a condition and set. I could also be wrong but from what i understand, Westminster can reverse devolution too. Not necessarily any time they please as such, but I do think that capacity is there.
 
Why do the BBC feel the need to quote that polling expert guy every 2 minutes. He's a bit like the referee experts on BT.

Earlier, it was 'if the snp wil some seats off the opposition and don't lose any of their own, they could have a majority'. No shit?

now he is claiming it is unlikely because they have only won 3 seats of the 9 in total of all other opposition parties combined (put that number into context for a minute), and not any more.

I know the regional seats are yet to come, but not quite clear how he gets that, given they were only 2 shy of a majority the last time.
 
Coatigan said:
Why do the BBC feel the need to quote that polling expert guy every 2 minutes. He's a bit like the referee experts on BT.

Earlier, it was 'if the snp wil some seats off the opposition and don't lose any of their own, they could have a majority'. No shit?

now he is claiming it is unlikely because they have only won 3 seats of the 9 in total of all other opposition parties combined (put that number into context for a minute), and not any more.

I know the regional seats are yet to come, but not quite clear how he gets that, given they were only 2 shy of a majority the last time.
Click to expand...

Wow - that kind of analysis surely puts him in line for a job on VAR - muddled and impenetrable thinking
 
Magicpole said:
You only need one good punch. Then follow it up with a well aimed nut to the face. Metaphorically speaking, obviously, I'm practically a conscientious objector since I gave up the Turps.
Click to expand...
Very admirable of you.
But it seems that regarding your Independence aims, you are in a rigged race. Even if it is not rigged it is very heavily handicapped.

Reminds me of a Rory Gallagher song. I’m off to YouTube.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Very admirable of you.
But it seems that regarding your Independence aims, you are in a rigged race. Even if it is not rigged it is very heavily handicapped.

Reminds me of a Rory Gallagher song. I’m off to YouTube.
Click to expand...
Rigged or not, and it is, we can still win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top