ronmcd wrote:

mattthomas wrote:Question for ronmcd, about the previous referendum on Scotland leaving the UK. The result was an almost half and half split of the vote with a slight majority favoring no. Would you agree that another referendum regardless of the outcome would mean that around half of your population is unhappy with the result? If I knew half of my electorate did not want to leave the UK, I would take that a sign that maybe independence should be left on the shelf.

Yes.

Polls also show people don't want a referendum anytime soon, although some show many think independence is the longer term likely destination. But you're right - NO won, and there isn't an appetite for a new referendum except amongst the hardcore nationalists who had the same opinion before SNP were anything other than a fringe party most people in Scotland ignored.

Sturgeon and SNP would destroy themselves if they called a new referendum.

Here's the thing - as someone said on twitter yesterday, the only people talking about a new referendum are Labour Tories and Libdems. They are all accusing SNP of wanting a new referendum asap, often outright lying about SNP somehow forcing Labour to "give" a referendum. It's all bollocks. The reason they are doing it is because currently SNP are polling over 50% in Scotland for this election, and quite clearly a large number of them (yes as well as no voters) are voting SNP safe in the knowledge they are not voting for a new referendum.

Edit - And the SNP and Sturgeon have been explicit, and I argued this with some on this board BEFORE Sturgeon made it clear in recent weeks - the SNP do NOT have a referendum in their manifesto, and have explicitly said there is no way to get a referendum other than a Holyrood manifesto committment, and then majority government on that manifesto, and unless something changes, it wont even be in the 2016 Holyrood manifesto.

mattthomas wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

mattthomas wrote:Question for ronmcd, about the previous referendum on Scotland leaving the UK. The result was an almost half and half split of the vote with a slight majority favoring no. Would you agree that another referendum regardless of the outcome would mean that around half of your population is unhappy with the result? If I knew half of my electorate did not want to leave the UK, I would take that a sign that maybe independence should be left on the shelf.

Yes.

Polls also show people don't want a referendum anytime soon, although some show many think independence is the longer term likely destination. But you're right - NO won, and there isn't an appetite for a new referendum except amongst the hardcore nationalists who had the same opinion before SNP were anything other than a fringe party most people in Scotland ignored.

Sturgeon and SNP would destroy themselves if they called a new referendum.

Here's the thing - as someone said on twitter yesterday, the only people talking about a new referendum are Labour Tories and Libdems. They are all accusing SNP of wanting a new referendum asap, often outright lying about SNP somehow forcing Labour to "give" a referendum. It's all bollocks. The reason they are doing it is because currently SNP are polling over 50% in Scotland for this election, and quite clearly a large number of them (yes as well as no voters) are voting SNP safe in the knowledge they are not voting for a new referendum.

Edit - And the SNP and Sturgeon have been explicit, and I argued this with some on this board BEFORE Sturgeon made it clear in recent weeks - the SNP do NOT have a referendum in their manifesto, and have explicitly said there is no way to get a referendum other than a Holyrood manifesto committment, and then majority government on that manifesto, and unless something changes, it wont even be in the 2016 Holyrood manifesto.

I heard Nicola Sturgeon on the radio being asked about it, and she quite clearly said that even if the SNP took every seat, it still wouldn't be a mandate for a referendum. Good on her, I want an SNP/Labour coalition because the SNP may be able to put the kibosh on Trident.

For me it's simple. I don't want a Labour majority

mrjonno wrote:... either Labour or the Tories are going to rule Scotland along with the rest of the UK. You may not like that but that's the system adjust to it instead of expecting the system to adjust to your wishes

mrjonno wrote:

For me it's simple. I don't want a Labour majority

In a first past the post system that practically means you want a Conservative majority which I suspect isn't want you mean

mrjonno wrote:Another hung parliament will concentrate minds to making sure it doesn't happen again most likely meaning people won't vote for smaller parties

You only have to look at this coalition, no one likes it left, right, centre because quite simply people will tolerate a bad government if they can clearly identify who is responsible and can kick it out after 5 years. They won't tolerate this farce where coalition partners can just blame each other while trying to take the credit for things that work (if any)

FPTP not working with coalition government is a reason not to have coalition government not get rid of FPTP (the referendum on electoral reform like the Scottish referendum has killed reform for at least a generation). In which political parties interest would reform be worthwhile, it's not in Labour or the Tories interest, it's not really worth the political for the Lib Dem's any more (they may save a few seats under FPTP), Greens/UKIP aren't getting many if any seats under FPTP so aren't going to get a chance to change anything.

The SNP could try proposing something but I can guarantee whatever they proposed would be automatically rejected merely because it came from the SNP , the actual policy would be irrelevant. Trying selling electoral form that originates from Scotland in England.

Reforming 'the system' in pie in the sky student politics, not interested in that any more, not going to happen

chairman bill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:... either Labour or the Tories are going to rule Scotland along with the rest of the UK. You may not like that but that's the system adjust to it instead of expecting the system to adjust to your wishes

Not for the first time, I don't altogether agree with you. I think that either Tories or Labour are going to be part of any UK government, but I suspect that more than that is difficult to assume. Another hung Parliament should concentrate minds on how best we manage our electoral system to cope with multi-party politics.

If the Tories have more seats, but not enough to form a government/survive a post Queen's Speech vote, and we then end up with a minority Labour government, supported by the SNP, the right wing press will clamour for its downfall, claiming that it is undemocratic & that the sky will fall on our heads. And for five years of a fixed parliament, that will be the way things will be. I can certainly imagine a move to introduce a PR system for elections, casting FPTP into the dustbin of history.

ronmcd wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:... either Labour or the Tories are going to rule Scotland along with the rest of the UK. You may not like that but that's the system adjust to it instead of expecting the system to adjust to your wishes

Not for the first time, I don't altogether agree with you. I think that either Tories or Labour are going to be part of any UK government, but I suspect that more than that is difficult to assume. Another hung Parliament should concentrate minds on how best we manage our electoral system to cope with multi-party politics.

If the Tories have more seats, but not enough to form a government/survive a post Queen's Speech vote, and we then end up with a minority Labour government, supported by the SNP, the right wing press will clamour for its downfall, claiming that it is undemocratic & that the sky will fall on our heads. And for five years of a fixed parliament, that will be the way things will be. I can certainly imagine a move to introduce a PR system for elections, casting FPTP into the dustbin of history.

I would prefer a federal system, each with PR, and a non-PR federal parliament where each of the federal regions is represented equally, or more equally.

Sorted.

mrjonno wrote:We already have a federal system, Scotland has far more power than any US state does. Individual states in the US cannot change the Federal income tax level while Scotland can do. I don't even think US states can discriminate against 'citizens' of other US states if they actually move to that state, ie charge student fees to English (Texan) students who move to Scotland (New York)

smudge wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

mrjonno wrote:... either Labour or the Tories are going to rule Scotland along with the rest of the UK. You may not like that but that's the system adjust to it instead of expecting the system to adjust to your wishes

Not for the first time, I don't altogether agree with you. I think that either Tories or Labour are going to be part of any UK government, but I suspect that more than that is difficult to assume. Another hung Parliament should concentrate minds on how best we manage our electoral system to cope with multi-party politics.

If the Tories have more seats, but not enough to form a government/survive a post Queen's Speech vote, and we then end up with a minority Labour government, supported by the SNP, the right wing press will clamour for its downfall, claiming that it is undemocratic & that the sky will fall on our heads. And for five years of a fixed parliament, that will be the way things will be. I can certainly imagine a move to introduce a PR system for elections, casting FPTP into the dustbin of history.

I would prefer a federal system, each with PR, and a non-PR federal parliament where each of the federal regions is represented equally, or more equally.

Sorted.

The idea appeals to me too. But it's far from 'sorted'. And I'd rather have that discussion after we can be sure that the NHS and the Welfare system are safe from Tory destruction.
I do understand your distaste for Labour.
For me it's a question of which battle needs winning first.

ronmcd wrote:

smudge wrote:

The idea appeals to me too. But it's far from 'sorted'. And I'd rather have that discussion after we can be sure that the NHS and the Welfare system are safe from Tory destruction.
I do understand your distaste for Labour.
For me it's a question of which battle needs winning first.

Will the NHS and welfare system be safe from Labour destruction?

chairman bill wrote:Well Labour aren't New Labour anymore, so any tendency towards marketisation is significantly lessened.

smudge wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

smudge wrote:

The idea appeals to me too. But it's far from 'sorted'. And I'd rather have that discussion after we can be sure that the NHS and the Welfare system are safe from Tory destruction.
I do understand your distaste for Labour.
For me it's a question of which battle needs winning first.

Will the NHS and welfare system be safe from Labour destruction?

Fair question. Certainly more safe in Labour hands than Conservative and that is the choice we realistically have. Pressure from the left is more than welcome (I have no illusions about Labour and will continue to make noise from the left myself!). But lets be honest about the fight we have to win first. If the Tories win this time we all lose big time.