Should Scotland be an independent country

[Alex MacLeod]

My only input to Europe is that I'd like to see a referendum on whether we should stay or leave. It was a good idea when it was European Economic Congress but it has evolved into a law making society. Dont get me wrong, there are many good things that have come out of it but also many bad. Fisheries policy being one of the latter.

 

I despair though at the lack of true debate, especially from the BetterTogether brigade. I'm becoming convinced that they are helping promote independence. Example linked here  http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7765-snp-demand-darling-withdraw-ridiculous-oil-claim

[starchief]

 

For me, it's mostly about a more representative government.  That's why I'm much more in favour of devo-max and even more increased federalism.  Power at the most local level.  Below that of London or Holyrood.  So, neither option especially appeals. The case isn't simple for me, so I'm still undecided.

 

 

Freedom from living under a government that the country did not vote for, that is run by and for an elite that grows richer and more powerful by the day. Freedom from sending our children to wars that mean nothing to us, from spending billions on those wars and the weaponry they require; freedom to decide what your own economic and social priorities are; and the freedom to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

Those kinds of freedoms.

 

That's what I meant by representative government.  But under independence, power is centralised in Edinburgh.  Under federalism, power is concentrated at the most local level.  That's why I am a federalist - greater freedom in your words, or representation in mine .  I'm undecided here how best to get there.

 

At the same token, England has had to put up with Labour when they have been extremely unpopular there - I think they should also be ruled by the party they vote for - again, that would preferably be under federalism but I do think they have every right to complain about the last 15 years of unrepresentative government more than Scotland (80s Thatcherism in reverse).

 

As for the Commonwealth not getting as much as the Olympics.  The prize for winning the second division in the Auchtermuchty Under-15s girls' league is quite rightly less than the Champions League.  It means far less, has way fewer fans and won't bring in anywhere near the amount of money.  It's not comparing like-for-like.  Scotland might be bringing in more money than they get out but would that money be coming in if we weren't part of the UK?  I have my concerns but I genuinely don't know. Quote one economist and the other side quotes another.

 

My predictions are:

- All to play for despite the polls. I anticipate a slight 'Yes' vote. Independence is a rallying call.  The status quo doesn't have that (ignoring Rockin' All Over The World natch).  A trick has been missed with max-devo to keep the UK together. I'd certainly have voted for that.

- I also predict the UK leaving the EU if a referendum gets taken.  Again, rebelling against something gets people out. Thinking things are ok doesn't inspire someone on a rainy night to leave their house.

[dougiedanger]

As long as Alex Salmond is at the helm of the SNP Scotland will remain very much part of the union

There will be no independence in my lifetime but that's not to say it will never happen

If the vote was taken tomorrow I reckon 75% No to 25% Yes

Too much braveheart watchers on this thread, Scotland is not ready for independence at this time and nor will it be in 2014

Independence at present would result in a mass exodus of some of the main businesses based in Scotland across the border or further afield i.e abroad

Dougal

 

That's a surprise, Dougal--I thought you were against mergers, especially where there is one powerful, overbearing partner, and another smaller one that loses its identity in the merger.

 

Still, it's nice to know the good people of Nottingham are so het up about all things Scottish.

[dougiedanger]

 

 

For me, it's mostly about a more representative government.  That's why I'm much more in favour of devo-max and even more increased federalism.  Power at the most local level.  Below that of London or Holyrood.  So, neither option especially appeals. The case isn't simple for me, so I'm still undecided.

 

 

Freedom from living under a government that the country did not vote for, that is run by and for an elite that grows richer and more powerful by the day. Freedom from sending our children to wars that mean nothing to us, from spending billions on those wars and the weaponry they require; freedom to decide what your own economic and social priorities are; and the freedom to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

Those kinds of freedoms.

 

 

At the same token, England has had to put up with Labour when they have been extremely unpopular there - I think they should also be ruled by the party they vote for - again, that would preferably be under federalism but I do think they have every right to complain about the last 15 years of unrepresentative government more than Scotland (80s Thatcherism in reverse).

 

 

 

 

England voted for Labour in those years, if they hadn't done so, there is no way Labour would have been in government. And the version of Labour they and we got was one set up to please the Home counties.

 

Edited July 24, 2013 by dougiedanger

[PullMyFinger]

For those who believe BBC and MSM are not being impartial there's a petition to direct Scottish Government to approach OSCE (part of ODIHR) to request an election monitoring mission. Only 5 more signatures required.

 

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-scottish-government-approach-the-osce-and-request-an-election-monitoring-mission

[Oddquine]

 

 

For me, it's mostly about a more representative government.  That's why I'm much more in favour of devo-max and even more increased federalism.  Power at the most local level.  Below that of London or Holyrood.  So, neither option especially appeals. The case isn't simple for me, so I'm still undecided.

 

 

Freedom from living under a government that the country did not vote for, that is run by and for an elite that grows richer and more powerful by the day. Freedom from sending our children to wars that mean nothing to us, from spending billions on those wars and the weaponry they require; freedom to decide what your own economic and social priorities are; and the freedom to take responsibility for those decisions.

 

Those kinds of freedoms.

 

That's what I meant by representative government.  But under independence, power is centralised in Edinburgh.  Under federalism, power is concentrated at the most local level.  That's why I am a federalist - greater freedom in your words, or representation in mine .  I'm undecided here how best to get there.

 

At the same token, England has had to put up with Labour when they have been extremely unpopular there - I think they should also be ruled by the party they vote for - again, that would preferably be under federalism but I do think they have every right to complain about the last 15 years of unrepresentative government more than Scotland (80s Thatcherism in reverse).

 

 

Although a lifelong Scottish nationalist with a big S and a small n..I would have had no problem with a federal system..after all it was what the Scots tried to get in 1707..and failed to achieve.  Not that I'd have stopped hankering after Independence, but I'd have give federalism a fair go to see if it was working before getting back on the Independence bus.  However that is a completely pie in the sky aspiration..because it is not on offer....so the choice is not available on the referendum. .and past experience with UK Governments over devolution would make the intelligent assume that federalism will never be an option.because there has been 300+ years to date for The UK Parliament to alter the system which gives English MPs complete control over all the nations in the UK.

 

Seems to me that if there really was the slightest chance of anything more than the current Scotland Act 2012, (a small sticking plaster to inadequately cover a gaping wound), being on offer, then the Better Together Campaign would be saying that in so many words....but they are fighting this Referendum in exactly the same way as they fought the 1979 one...producing ludicrous scare-mongering sound-bytes, fleshed out in the MSM with codswallop, while hinting at meaningful change for a No vote..and we all know what happened after the 1979 referendum, when we didn't jump the 40% barrier, although we did vote yes by a majority....absolutely nothing at all.

 

I rather think there is more chance of meaningful change if you set up a party aiming for federalisation of the regions within the Scotland after Independence, than voting for the UK status quo in the hopes that they will loosen their grip and come up with a federal system.

 

Scottish MPs have had no practical influence on UK Governments even when there were 72 of them..(and come 2015 there will be only 52 to be accommodated)....you should bear in mind that Scotland does not vote 100% Labour. In fact, the most decisive influence Scottish MPs have ever had in UK elections was in this last one, when our input denied the Tories an outright majority..but we still got the Tories anyway. Other than that without Scottish votes, the 1964 election would have ended with a Hung Parliament as opposed to the short-lived Labour Government ..as would have the 1974 one, which was maintained pretty much to term by dint of  the Lab/Lib pact.

 

If you had bothered to check out the figures, you would realise that with I do think they have every right to complain about the last 15 years of unrepresentative government more than Scotland (80s Thatcherism in reverse). you are promulgating another myth....as  even without the Scottish MPs, in the 15 years of Labour governments, the worst they would have done was a majority of 43...as England voted Labour! Sheesh!

[Yngwie]

Scottish MPs have had no practical influence on UK Governments even when there were 72 of them..(and come 2015 there will be only 52 to be accommodated)....

 

 

I don't think that is the case. There were (very sensible) proposals to reduce the number of Westminster MPs from 650 to 600 and to redraw boundaries all over the UK to make constituencies pretty much the same size. But the idea got shelved when the Lib Dems threw their rattle out of the pram about something, or perhaps realised how many of them would lose their jobs. So the 2015 election constituencies will be the same as at present.

 

As an aside, in the last general election the Coalition got 36% of the vote in Scotland, which is actually more than Blair's Labour government got in the UK as a whole in the previous election, so we perhaps have no more reason than anyone else to complain about not getting the government we wanted.

[Oddquine]

 

Scottish MPs have had no practical influence on UK Governments even when there were 72 of them..(and come 2015 there will be only 52 to be accommodated)....

 

 

I don't think that is the case. There were (very sensible) proposals to reduce the number of Westminster MPs from 650 to 600 and to redraw boundaries all over the UK to make constituencies pretty much the same size. But the idea got shelved when the Lib Dems threw their rattle out of the pram about something, or perhaps realised how many of them would lose their jobs. So the 2015 election constituencies will be the same as at present.

 

As an aside, in the last general election the Coalition got 36% of the vote in Scotland, which is actually more than Blair's Labour government got in the UK as a whole in the previous election, so we perhaps have no more reason than anyone else to complain about not getting the government we wanted.

 

Mea Culpa.......thought that had gone through!  59 Scottish MPs, then? (less than London has.)  

 

Perhaps we have more reason to claim that we didn't get the government we wanted when 35.7% of us voted for what we got,.........and 64.3% of us didn't. If it had been the other way around, as it was in England, then your aside would have had some merit.....but as it is England 63.8% voted for what we got....which simply rather shows that under FPTP,  we get pretty much the Government England wants... pretty much every time...doesn't it?

 

FPTP only resembles democracy in much the same way as I resemble a page 3 girl.......as in not at all by any remote stretch of any fevered  imagination.

[The Mantis]

 

As an aside, in the last general election the Coalition got 36% of the vote in Scotland,

Fair enough but what if you had told them beforehand it was the ConDems rather than the Libdems they were voting for (still haven't worked out how to access the smileys using this otherwise mighty fine iPad)......

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

As an aside, in the last general election the Coalition got 36% of the vote in Scotland,

Fair enough but what if you had told them beforehand it was the ConDems rather than the Libdems they were voting for (still haven't worked out how to access the smileys using this otherwise mighty fine iPad)......

 

Well, actually you might argue that they would have got more votes.  The usual consequence of our antiquated first past the post system is that the Lib Dems get a decent vote but few MPs and even less influence.  By siding with the Tories the Lib Dems have had a lot more influence in Government and have got some of their favoured policies through.  Had voters known that the lib dems' alliance with the Tories would allow them to have some influence in Government, and a few more voted for them as a result, then we might have found that they were much less the junior partners than is currently the case.  Clegg's mistake in my view was not to hold out for PR as a condition of joining in an alliance.  Refusal might have triggered a second election in which the lib dems would have stood to fare even better.  As it is, clegg's lust for power has meant we can kiss goodbye any chance of PR for at least another 10 years.

 

Coming back to the independence debate, the point here is that the UK electoral system means that a strong SNP vote will, from time to time, hold the balance of power in the UK parliament.  When that happens Scots voters will get a far greater level of influence and the English will feel they are being ruled by a Scottish minority.

 

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us.  The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution.   Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England.   There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

[Oddquine]

My only input to Europe is that I'd like to see a referendum on whether we should stay or leave. It was a good idea when it was European Economic Congress but it has evolved into a law making society. Dont get me wrong, there are many good things that have come out of it but also many bad. Fisheries policy being one of the latter.

 

I despair though at the lack of true debate, especially from the BetterTogether brigade. I'm becoming convinced that they are helping promote independence. Example linked here  http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7765-snp-demand-darling-withdraw-ridiculous-oil-claim

 I agree with your Euro referendum wish, but I'm pretty sure some party will use that as a hook from which to hang their manifesto in the run-up to the 2016 election in an Independent Scotland. I don't think the SNP will, which is why this lifetime SNP voter will be looking for somewhere else to put their cross in 2016 (and anyway, I don't like the SNP filling every spare inch of rural  Scotland with windmills policy either.)

 

I also despair at the lack of debate generally.....but if I am going to be perfectly fair...and being a member of various forums, both political and general, based in the UK and in the USA, this forum is a beacon of almost sensible discussion compared with every other one I frequent.......believe me, it is! This place is pretty good re discussion...I could give you a list of places populated by Unionist members almost all of the of the "we hate wee fat Eck" "Wee fat Eck is just another dictator" " We won't vote for a Scotland ruled by the SNP",  " Left to themselves, without wee fat Eck pushing, there would never have been a referendum"  and various other complete irrationalities.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

As an aside, in the last general election the Coalition got 36% of the vote in Scotland,

Fair enough but what if you had told them beforehand it was the ConDems rather than the Libdems they were voting for (still haven't worked out how to access the smileys using this otherwise mighty fine iPad)......

 

Well, actually you might argue that they would have got more votes.  The usual consequence of our antiquated first past the post system is that the Lib Dems get a decent vote but few MPs and even less influence.  By siding with the Tories the Lib Dems have had a lot more influence in Government and have got some of their favoured policies through.  Had voters known that the lib dems' alliance with the Tories would allow them to have some influence in Government, and a few more voted for them as a result, then we might have found that they were much less the junior partners than is currently the case.  Clegg's mistake in my view was not to hold out for PR as a condition of joining in an alliance.  Refusal might have triggered a second election in which the lib dems would have stood to fare even better.  As it is, clegg's lust for power has meant we can kiss goodbye any chance of PR for at least another 10 years.

 

Coming back to the independence debate, the point here is that the UK electoral system means that a strong SNP vote will, from time to time, hold the balance of power in the UK parliament.  When that happens Scots voters will get a far greater level of influence and the English will feel they are being ruled by a Scottish minority.

 

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us.  The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution.   Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England.   There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

 

Coming back to the Independence debate.......the fact is that a strong SNP showing is the ONLY thing which has ever wrested any small concession, like devolution, from the UK Government..nothing to do with balance of power in a UK Government,,,,,,more to do with a realisation that the Scots think differently to a majority UK Government joined at the hip to London and the big businesses based there. .......and, if we are going to be completely honest...the immense fear that we might just pick up our waters, and the oil wells in them and head off into the non-UK controlled  sunset while packing the nuclear subs with all the Nuclear warheads we store  and sending them back to the only country that wants them. .

 

What has Labour in Wales to do with anything regarding Scotland?  Wales is not legally a separate country...in the UK....as they have no Union treaty......so in that case England just has to suck up what they have set up......including the Welsh  voting propensities.because in legal fact Wales was annexed to England centuries ago, which makes Wales an English possession..

 

Which part of "in 300+ years, Scotland has had influence in deciding this Conservative/LibDem Coalition Government, an 18 month long Labour Government and a Lab/Lib pact. Government " do you not quite grasp that you maintain Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  So you  and others justify fifty and a lot of + Governments chosen by England because "sometimes" .as in one time in three hundred years..Scotland actually got got what Scotland voted for against the wishes of the English voter?  Well shucks!

 

Would you care to argue on here.or even in another thread, that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

[+DoofersDad]

 

Coming back to the Independence debate.......the fact is that a strong SNP showing is the ONLY thing which has ever wrested any small concession, like devolution, from the UK Government..nothing to do with balance of power in a UK Government,,,,,,more to do with a realisation that the Scots think differently to a majority UK Government joined at the hip to London and the big businesses based there. .......and, if we are going to be completely honest...the immense fear that we might just pick up our waters, and the oil wells in them and head off into the non-UK controlled  sunset while packing the nuclear subs with all the Nuclear warheads we store  and sending them back to the only country that wants them. .

 

 

 

What has Labour in Wales to do with anything regarding Scotland?  Wales is not legally a separate country...in the UK....as they have no Union treaty......so in that case England just has to suck up what they have set up......including the Welsh  voting propensities.because in legal fact Wales was annexed to England centuries ago, which makes Wales an English possession..

 

Which part of "in 300+ years, Scotland has had influence in deciding this Conservative/LibDem Coalition Government, an 18 month long Labour Government and a Lab/Lib pact. Government " do you not quite grasp that you maintain Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  So you  and others justify fifty and a lot of + Governments chosen by England because "sometimes" .as in one time in three hundred years..Scotland actually got got what Scotland voted for against the wishes of the English voter?  Well shucks!

 

Would you care to argue on here.or even in another thread, that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

 

 

This is the kind of contribution which simply puts people off the debate,  The tone is condescending and yet the writer apparently fails to understand the points made and is, herself just plain wrong.  She asks "What has Labour in Wales to do with anything regarding Scotland?" well, it has to do with Scotland precisely what I said in my post.  That is that there are times when England votes Tory but get a Labour Government because Scotland and Wales vote Labour.  In those situations, despite being far and away the biggest of the home countries England has a Government imposed on it by its smaller neighbours.

 

Oddquine states somewhat unpleasantly "Which part of "in 300+ years, Scotland has had influence in deciding this Conservative/LibDem Coalition Government, an 18 month long Labour Government and a Lab/Lib pact. Government " do you not quite grasp that you maintain Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales. England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours. So you and others justify fifty and a lot of + Governments chosen by England because "sometimes" .as in one time in three hundred years..Scotland actually got got what Scotland voted for against the wishes of the English voter? Well shucks!"

 

"One time in 300 years!"  What complete nonsense!  In both 1964 and 1974 the UK Government was Labour despite England voting Conservative.  So that's 2 more for you.  There are others as well but you can look those up yourself.

 

And no, I have no intention or arguing either here or anywhere else that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.  What I am doing is simply making the point that the current set up does not oppress the Scots anything remotely like some stating the independence case would have us believe.   In my posts on this debate, I am not taking one side or the other.  I am genuinely interested in reasoned debate and frankly get a little annoyed when people from either side drag the debate back into the gutter by spouting such ill-considered nonsense - particularly when delivered in such an unpleasant manner.

[PullMyFinger]

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us.  The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution.   Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England.   There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

 

 

This defies belief. Can you back up those assertions with evidence?

[dougiedanger]

Well, I would vote for Oddquine, and do appreciate her robust, fact-filled style.

[starchief]

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales. England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours. It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us. The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution. Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England. There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

This defies belief. Can you back up those assertions with evidence?

England cant vote on Scottish matters. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters. Some could reasonably argue (not me though) that Scotland has more MPs than their population deserves. Personally, Im in favour of far more MPs for everyone.

DoofersDad talks complete unbiased unemotive sense. Just the facts ma'am, is all that is needed.

[PullMyFinger]

"One time in 300 years!"  What complete nonsense!  In both 1964 and 1974 the UK Government was Labour despite England voting Conservative.  So that's 2 more for you.  There are others as well but you can look those up yourself.

 

 

Looking at this in 1964 and 1974 there would have been "hung parliaments" without Scottish Labour MPs and in 2010 there would have been a Conservative majority. However if we also take out the Welsh and N.Irish results into account in those years the conservatives would have had a majority. I say this is not acceptable for the poor English and demand they are given their independence.

 

Incidentally, in general elections in Scotland Labour have had a clear majority since 1959 and we've had Conservative government for 25 of those years versus 19 years of Labour. If that's something you're trying to defend then good luck! You need it.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-059.pdf (Results from page 9)

 

1945 Labour govt (Attlee)

————————————

Labour majority: 146

Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143

NO CHANGE

 

1950 Labour govt (Attlee)

————————————

Labour majority: 5

Without Scottish MPs: 2

NO CHANGE

 

1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden)

——————————————————–

Conservative majority: 17

Without Scottish MPs: 16

NO CHANGE

 

1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan)

——————————————————–

Conservative majority: 60

Without Scottish MPs: 61

NO CHANGE

 

1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home)

————————————————————————

Conservative majority: 100

Without Scottish MPs: 109

NO CHANGE

 

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————-

Labour majority: 4

Without Scottish MPs: -9

CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

 

1966 Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————-

Labour majority: 98

Without Scottish MPs: 77

NO CHANGE

 

1970 Conservative govt (Heath)

——————————————–

Conservative majority: 30

Without Scottish MPs: 55

NO CHANGE

 

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)

————————————————-

Labour majority: -33

Without Scottish MPs: -50

NO CHANGE

 

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)

—————————————————–

Labour majority: 3

Without Scottish MPs: -8

CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT

 

1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher)

————————————————-

Conservative majority: 43

Without Scottish MPs: 70

NO CHANGE

 

1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher)

————————————————-

Conservative majority: 144

Without Scottish MPs: 174

NO CHANGE

 

1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major)

——————————————————-

Conservative majority: 102

Without Scottish MPs: 154

NO CHANGE

 

1992 Conservative govt (Major)

———————————————

Conservative majority: 21

Without Scottish MPs: 71

NO CHANGE

 

1997 Labour govt (Blair)

———————————–

Labour majority: 179

Without Scottish MPs: 139

NO CHANGE

 

2001 Labour govt (Blair)

———————————–

Labour majority: 167

Without Scottish MPs: 129

NO CHANGE

 

2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown)

——————————————–

Labour majority: 66

Without Scottish MPs:  43

NO CHANGE

 

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)

——————————————

Conservative majority: -38

Without Scottish MPs: 19

CHANGE: HUNG PARLIAMENT TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

 

Sources:

All UK general election results

General election results in Scotland 1945-2001 (Table 1e, p.13)

General election results in Scotland 2005 and 2010

 

[PullMyFinger]

I just thought I'd like to add that of the 300+ years of union, only since the 1918 Representation of the People Act did all men over 21 and women over 30 have the right to a vote and only from the 1928 Representation of the People Act was the right extended to women over 21. The age was dropped to 18 in the 1969 Representation of the People Act.

 

Now tell us again about how the people of Scotland have influenced the Union.

[+DoofersDad]

 

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us.  The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution.   Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England.   There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

 

 

This defies belief. Can you back up those assertions with evidence?

 

Yes

 

These are the results of all the general elections since 1945 and show which party got the biggest share of the popular vote in Scotland and in England. 

5 July 1945 - Labour (Clement Attlee)

Scotland voted Labour (47.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (48.6%). Got Labour.

23 February 1950 - Labour (Clement Attlee)

Scotland voted Labour (46.2%). Got Labour.

England voted for Labour and Conservative exactly (48.8% each). Got Labour.

25 October 1951 - Conservative (Winston Churchill)

Scotland voted Conservative (48.6%). Got Conservative.

England voted Labour (46.1%). Got Conservative.

26 May 1955 - Conservative (Anthony Eden)

Scotland voted Conservative (50.1%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (50.3%). Got Conservative.

8 October 1959 - Conservative (Harold MacMillan, and Alex Douglas-Home)

Scotland voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (50.0%). Got Conservative.

15 October 1964 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (48.7%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (44.0%). Got Labour.

31 March 1966 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (49.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (47.8%). Got Labour.

18 June 1970 - Conservative (Edward Heath)

Scotland voted Labour (44.5%). Got Conservative

England voted Conservative (48.3%). Got Conservative.

28 February 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (36.6%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (40.1%). Got Labour.

10 October 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan)

Scotland voted Labour (36.3%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (40.1%). Got Labour.

3 May 1979 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher)

Scotland voted Labour (41.5%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative.

9 June 1983 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher)

Scotland voted Labour (35.1%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (46.0%). Got Conservative.

11 June 1987 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher, and John Major)

Scotland voted Labour (42.4%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (46.1%). Got Conservative.

9 April 1992 - Conservative (John Major)

Scotland voted Labour (39%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (45.5%). Got Conservative.

1 May 1997 - Labour (Tony Blair)

Scotland voted Labour (45.6%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (43.5%) Got Labour.

7 June 2001 - Labour (Tony Blair)

Scotland voted Labour (43.3%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (41.4%). Got Labour.

5 May 2005 - Labour (Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown)

Scotland voted Labour (38.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (35.7%). Got Labour.

6 May 2010 - Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition (David Cameron)

Scotland voted Labour (42%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition,

England voted Conservative (39.5%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition

 

This shows that since 1945 Scotland has only failed to get a UK Government in line with the popular vote in Scotland on 6 occasions out of 18.   That is actually not very different to the English position.  Apart from the elections of 74 and 64 mentioned earlier England did not get the party of the popular vote there in 2005 or 1951 and the results of 2010 and 1950 did not entirely reflect the popular vote.

 

I think views are clouded by relatively recent history and the Thatcher years, Four of the six occasions when Scotland did not get the Government it voted for were the four consecutive elections of the Thatcher / Major years.  There seems to be an urban myth that Scotland votes labour and we are lumbered with a Conservative Government - but when you look at the bigger picture you see that the Thatcher / Major years are the exception rather than the rule.  The only other times Scotland has not got the Government  it wanted is with the current coalition administration and in 1951 when, believe it or not, Scotland voted Conservative and England voted Labour! 

 

As for my last point about devolution I am sure you can't seriously mean that part of my argument defies belief.  Even when Scotland does not get the Government of the party of the popular vote, Scotland controls those matters devolved to it.  The English do not have that luxury. 

 

I stand by what I said.   All I am saying is that whatever the other arguments may be for independence, the argument about being disenfranchised in the voting system and being governed according to the English vote is simply not supported by the facts.  Scotland gets the Government it votes for just about the same as the English do - that's a fact.

[PullMyFinger]

 

 

Don't forget also that it has sometimes been the case that we have a labour Government because of a strong labour showing in Scotland and Wales.  England votes Tory and gets a Labour Government because of the voting patterns of its Celtic neighbours.  It is disingenuous of the "Yes" campaigners to say that we need independence because the Government we get is the Government England votes for and we have little say in decisions which affect us.  The English will see the Scots and Welsh as having a disproportionate say in UK affairs - and this is without devolution.   Devolution gives Scots their own voice on devolved matters whilst they can still interfere on the same topics as they apply to England.   There are many who would argue that the current political set up works better for the Scots than the English.

 

 

This defies belief. Can you back up those assertions with evidence?

 

Yes

 

These are the results of all the general elections since 1945 and show which party got the biggest share of the popular vote in Scotland and in England. 

5 July 1945 - Labour (Clement Attlee)

Scotland voted Labour (47.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (48.6%). Got Labour.

23 February 1950 - Labour (Clement Attlee)

Scotland voted Labour (46.2%). Got Labour.

England voted for Labour and Conservative exactly (48.8% each). Got Labour.

25 October 1951 - Conservative (Winston Churchill)

Scotland voted Conservative (48.6%). Got Conservative.

England voted Labour (46.1%). Got Conservative.

26 May 1955 - Conservative (Anthony Eden)

Scotland voted Conservative (50.1%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (50.3%). Got Conservative.

8 October 1959 - Conservative (Harold MacMillan, and Alex Douglas-Home)

Scotland voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (50.0%). Got Conservative.

15 October 1964 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (48.7%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (44.0%). Got Labour.

31 March 1966 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (49.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (47.8%). Got Labour.

18 June 1970 - Conservative (Edward Heath)

Scotland voted Labour (44.5%). Got Conservative

England voted Conservative (48.3%). Got Conservative.

28 February 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson)

Scotland voted Labour (36.6%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (40.1%). Got Labour.

10 October 1974 - Labour (Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan)

Scotland voted Labour (36.3%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (40.1%). Got Labour.

3 May 1979 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher)

Scotland voted Labour (41.5%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (47.2%). Got Conservative.

9 June 1983 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher)

Scotland voted Labour (35.1%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (46.0%). Got Conservative.

11 June 1987 - Conservative (Margaret Thatcher, and John Major)

Scotland voted Labour (42.4%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (46.1%). Got Conservative.

9 April 1992 - Conservative (John Major)

Scotland voted Labour (39%). Got Conservative.

England voted Conservative (45.5%). Got Conservative.

1 May 1997 - Labour (Tony Blair)

Scotland voted Labour (45.6%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (43.5%) Got Labour.

7 June 2001 - Labour (Tony Blair)

Scotland voted Labour (43.3%). Got Labour.

England voted Labour (41.4%). Got Labour.

5 May 2005 - Labour (Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown)

Scotland voted Labour (38.9%). Got Labour.

England voted Conservative (35.7%). Got Labour.

6 May 2010 - Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition (David Cameron)

Scotland voted Labour (42%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition,

England voted Conservative (39.5%). Got Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition

 

This shows that since 1945 Scotland has only failed to get a UK Government in line with the popular vote in Scotland on 6 occasions out of 18.   That is actually not very different to the English position.  Apart from the elections of 74 and 64 mentioned earlier England did not get the party of the popular vote there in 2005 or 1951 and the results of 2010 and 1950 did not entirely reflect the popular vote.

 

I think views are clouded by relatively recent history and the Thatcher years, Four of the six occasions when Scotland did not get the Government it voted for were the four consecutive elections of the Thatcher / Major years.  There seems to be an urban myth that Scotland votes labour and we are lumbered with a Conservative Government - but when you look at the bigger picture you see that the Thatcher / Major years are the exception rather than the rule.  The only other times Scotland has not got the Government  it wanted is with the current coalition administration and in 1951 when, believe it or not, Scotland voted Conservative and England voted Labour! 

 

As for my last point about devolution I am sure you can't seriously mean that part of my argument defies belief.  Even when Scotland does not get the Government of the party of the popular vote, Scotland controls those matters devolved to it.  The English do not have that luxury. 

 

I stand by what I said.   All I am saying is that whatever the other arguments may be for independence, the argument about being disenfranchised in the voting system and being governed according to the English vote is simply not supported by the facts.  Scotland gets the Government it votes for just about the same as the English do - that's a fact.

 

 

Not disputing devolved powers but decisions taken in Westminster do affect the funds available to us through Barnett consequentials.

 

The fact  that England as part of the UK may get a government that it didn't vote for shouldn't stop the people of Scotland voting Yes to always get the government we vote for, that's absurd!

[Yngwie]

For those who believe that this representation issue is a valid reason for independence, the logical conclusion, if you are consistent, is that when an independent Scotland consistently votes Labour overall but the people of the north and south do not, then those regions should become independent from Scotland. And then ultimately you keep going down to town level, perhaps even street level, until everyone gets what they want.

[Alex MacLeod]

Interesting figures there but I wonder who would have faired best if the UK had adopted a more fair system of voting proportional to the votes gained. in all those elections quoted above only once did the party in power get there with greater than 50% of the vote.

[The Mantis]

For those who believe that this representation issue is a valid reason for independence, the logical conclusion, if you are consistent, is that when an independent Scotland consistently votes Labour overall but the people of the north and south do not, then those regions should become independent from Scotland. And then ultimately you keep going down to town level, perhaps even street level, until everyone gets what they want.

Surely that's just stating the obvious!

Obviously models will fall on the basis of parochialism, inefficiency, geographical differences etc etc.

 

For instance I could be persuaded that independence for the North half of Britain was a goer but I doubt if it would get much support.

Similarly CB has often mooted the concept of Indy for the Highlands which sounds reasonable to me, but if anything the Highlands are more pro-Scottish than the rest of Scotland.

The model of Independence for Scotland, for whatever reason, appeals to a large number and has done during my lifetime.

 

For me the issue of representation is certainly a factor, but it's part of a wider picture: the realisation, several years ago, of the true motive of Westminster in opposing Independence.

Sure, it's about the oil, how can it not be? But equally, it's about defence. The Sir Humphries, leaned on by their American cousins, simply must win this. By any means, fair or foul. They can deal with the fallout later.

The McCrone report shows that we were lied to by our own government when the oil was discovered. Dennis Healey has reinforced this. They have all the capitalist press on their side, and they appear to have enlisted the BBC too.

For me, all the porkies attributed to Big Bad Alex fade into insignificance compared to this.

[PullMyFinger]

For those who believe that this representation issue is a valid reason for independence, the logical conclusion, if you are consistent, is that when an independent Scotland consistently votes Labour overall but the people of the north and south do not, then those regions should become independent from Scotland. And then ultimately you keep going down to town level, perhaps even street level, until everyone gets what they want.

 

That would be interesting but for one inconvenient point, we live in a country which was once independent but was sold out by the ruling classes at a time when only the ruling classes had a vote.

 

The first logical step to localised federalism is independence and then for the regions to get autonomy. Scottish Government is already working with the Islands Councils to come to an arrangement for that very thing.

 

Vote Yes for democracy or no for continued forced austerity, make no mistake this austerity is by design to make the richest even richer. Privatisation of things like the state NHS down south to the cabinet's members, friends & family cuts our share through Barnett consequentials. ATOS creating mountains for an already stretched DSS causing delays for claimants is driving people to desperate measures like foodbanks, payday loan companies and in extreme cases suicide.

[PullMyFinger]

 

For instance I could be persuaded that independence for the North half of Britain was a goer but I doubt if it would get much support.

 

 

This is not on offer as yet, but independence for Scotland is.

 

Northern councils are however looking at close links to an independent Scotland after eyeing us with suspicion for many, many years due to the settlement we receive from Westminster having a legal framework.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/jul/26/scottish-independence-northeast-england