Scotland Votes 2011

[DarloRich]

Lochwinnoch is in the new Renfrewshire South constituency. The results are as follows:
Hugh Henry, Labour: 12,943
Andrew Doig, SNP: 10,356
Alistair Ramsay Campbell, Conservative: 2,917
Gordon Ian Anderson, Liberal Democrat: 702

Labour Hold, with a majority of 2,587 votes (9.6%).
5.4% swing from Labour to SNP

Renfrewshire South also elects candidates to the West of Scotland regional list, electing the following candidates:
Labour: Mary Fee, Neil Bibby & Margaret McDougall (32.8% of the vote)
SNP: Stewart Maxwell & Stewart McMillan (41.5% of the vote)
Conservative: Annabel Goldie & Jackson Carlaw (12.7% of the vote)

Thanks guys - I couldnt find the constituancy

 

[Eng274]

It is an impressive majority in an election system set up by Westminster to never allow a majority of any kind (well that was the plan - GIRUY!)

To quote Billy Connolly, the "wee pretendy parliament" he loathes is starting to gather momentum

 

[Zoe]

I just hope Cameron doesn't do a Thatcher and abolish the Scottish parliament like Thatcher did with the GLC if things don't go his way.

 

[DarloRich]

Could the SNP win an indipendance vote?

If we can just get that pipeline form the oilfield to Tesside built.........................

 

[me123]

It is an impressive majority in an election system set up by Westminster to never allow a majority of any kind (well that was the plan - GIRUY!)

It shows that it's the electorate, and not the voting system, that determines the outcome of an election. This is a system that is unlikely to produce a single party with an overall majority; yet today that's what's happened. A year ago, a system that is unlikely to produce a hung parliament did just that.

Although it comes far too late, it rubbishes the claims of the AV campaigners (on both sides) that changing the voting system somehow creates more/fewer majorities.

 

[CarterUSM]

Apologies for drifting slightly off topic here, but i thought this may be of some interest. On page 13 of my latest edition (April 2011) RMT news, there is an article about Holyroods powers over rail provision in Scotland . I cannot link this, but I will explain the gist of what it says.
It more or less explains that while the Scottish Government has powers to plan, specify, let, manage and finance passenger services which begin and end within Scotland, it has been established through questions by Elaine Smith and others that the relevant legislation ( Scotland Bill ) does not allow for the franchise to be brought back "in house", Scotrail Services MUST be put out to tender. The RMT and TSSA, with the support of the RMT Parliamentary group at Westminister embarked on a campaign to change this legislation with a proposed amendment to the Scotland Bill . This amendment to the Bill fell by 293 votes to 172 due to lack of Government support. Their spokesperson , David Mundell MP , explained this opposition by stating " .....government do not agree with that proposal because we believe that it would open the opportunity to fundamentally alter the national framework by allowing a renationalisation of the network in Scotland ."

This is a bit of a surprise to me, and at odds with what i believed to be the case, though i am certainly not versed in the intricate wordings of the Scotland Bill !

***Mods, please move this post if deemed not relevant to thread or whatever.**

 

[me123]

Our final results are coming in now; the last of the regional lists. All is expected before ~4pm, as that's when the AV count must start.

Highlands & Islands, and Mid Scotland & Fife are yet to declare

Lothian has returned 3 Labour MSPs (Sarah Boyack, Kezia Dugdale & Neil Findlay), 2 Conservative MSPs (David William McLetchie & Gavin Brown), a new Green MSP (Alison Johnstone), and the independent Margo MacDonald (of Assisted Suicide Bill fame).

 

[Zoe]

Apologies for drifting slightly off topic here, but i thought this may be of some interest. On page 13 of my latest edition (April 2011) RMT news, there is an article about Holyroods powers over rail provision in Scotland . I cannot link this, but I will explain the gist of what it says.
It more or less explains that while the Scottish Government has powers to plan, specify, let, manage and finance passenger services which begin and end within Scotland, it has been established through questions by Elaine Smith and others that the relevant legislation ( Scotland Bill ) does not allow for the franchise to be brought back "in house", Scotrail Services MUST be put out to tender. The RMT and TSSA, with the support of the RMT Parliamentary group at Westminister embarked on a campaign to change this legislation with a proposed amendment to the Scotland Bill . This amendment to the Bill fell by 293 votes to 172 due to lack of Government support. Their spokesperson , David Mundell MP , explained this opposition by stating " .....government do not agree with that proposal because we believe that it would open the opportunity to fundamentally alter the national framework by allowing a renationalisation of the network in Scotland ."

This is a bit of a surprise to me, and at odds with what i believed to be the case, though i am certainly not versed in the intricate wordings of the Scotland Bill !

The Railways Act 1993 does not allow any emnation of the crown to hold a franchise either so the Scottish government couldn't set up their own company to run the franchise. However the Transport Act 2000 gave power to the SRA to not relet a franchise I beleive and the Railways Act 2005 transferred this power to the Scottish government. Does the Scotland Bill explicitly revoke this?

 

[CarterUSM]

The Railways Act 1993 does not allow any emnation of the crown to hold a franchise either so the Scottish government couldn't set up their own company to run the franchise. However the Transport Act 2000 gave power to the SRA to not relet a franchise I beleive and the Railways Act 2005 transferred this power to the Scottish government. Does the Scotland Bill explicitly revoke this?

To be honest, I don't know! Though i don't think the RMT would make issue with it for nothing. Acts and Bills reallly aren't a strong point of mine however. :cry:

 

[Zoe]

I've had a quick look through the legislation and it seems the SRA only had the power not to relet if there were no tenders and the Secretary of State directed them not to seek a new franchisee. It would seem then that The Scottish parliament will have to relet the franchise unless the Scottish parliament have the powers of the Secratary of State to direct Transport Scotland not to seek a franchised operator.

However the Railways Act 1993 does state: "It shall be the duty of the appropriate designating authority from time to time to designate such services for the carriage of passengers by railway (other than services which are, by virtue of section 24 below, exempt from designation under this subsection) as it considers ought to be provided under franchise agreements." The Railways Act 2005 states the "Scottish Ministers" are the appropriate designating authority for Scotland only services. It would seem from this that the Scottish Ministers could decide that all services within Scotland should not be designated for provision under a franchise agreement. The Railways Act 1993 only prohibits Transport Scotland from operating a franchise.

However although the Scottish Ministers do seem to have the power to decide that rail services within Scotland should not be franchised they may not have any stock to run the services as I'm not sure the ROSCOs are oblidged to lease to anyone not holding a franchise.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Wel lets see what if anything happens with independence - a scotrail franchise wil have to be let in 2014 but if Scotland breaks ranks with Westminster who knows next time round? i think the desertion of lib dem and the low tory numbers not only highlight how hated the current Westminster leedership is but also how irelevant much of it is.

I'm an Englishman living in Scotland and til now have never wanted independence and not taken the talk/ideas about it at all seriusly. Now however, it would appear the country has voted and the vast majoritty of them know what they were voting for!

 

[Zoe]

I'm an Englishman living in Scotland and til now have never wanted independence and not taken the talk/ideas about it at all seriusly. Now however, it would appear the country has voted and the vast majoritty of them know what they were voting for!

I believe the policy is that you would be entitled to Scottish citizenship if you are living in Scotland at the time. Cameron could also prevent independence if he was determined to block it by abolishing the Scottish Parliament.

 

[Blindtraveler]

wel as a further stepping stone into the pond of unpopularitty, it would indeed be worth him trying. Doubt he'll do so though.

 

[Bittern]

So that makes history three times over. First ever majority Goverment in Scotland under devolution, Labour's worst ever defeat in Scotland in over 80 years (in railway terms, the big four were still around back then!) and the largest ever SNP victory. What an incredible night it was for Scotland.

Gutted we didn't get Gray's seat though. That would've been excellent to see. Still, he's stepping down.

 

[Blindtraveler]

and good riddence. He's not to me a leader.

 

[me123]

I believe the policy is that you would be entitled to Scottish citizenship if you are living in Scotland at the time. Cameron could also prevent independence if he was determined to block it by abolishing the Scottish Parliament.

He'd either be very brave or very stupid to do that. Scrapping the Scottish Parliament will scrap whatever mandate and influence the Tories have in Scotland. And I'm pretty sure he'll lose the one Westminster seat as well. A yes vote in any referendum would effectively mean that Scotland will become independent. Cameron will have little choice, because the Scottish people will have expressed their desire in a democratic vote to leave the United Kingdom. If he doesn't do it, the next guy will.

This is all assuming a "yes" vote. A "no" vote would obviously have no such ramifications, and we'd just continue with the status quo.

 

[Zoe]

He'd either be very brave or very stupid to do that.

Thatcher abolished the GLC in the 1980s after conflict with Ken Livingstoneand the UK government then took direct control of areas like London Transport. The Tories still got reelected. Even without any Scottish MPs the Tories could still take direct control of the areas currently the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

 

[Blindtraveler]

god forbid!

 

[me123]

But he wouldn't get very far. The Scottish Parliament is widely supported in Scotland (I believe 95% of people want it to stay). It's in no-ones interest to abolish it, least of all the Conservatives who have to get re-elected at some point in the future!

The Scottish Parliament has given the Tories a voice in Scotland. Regardless of what happens to the political landscape in the future, they'd be foolish to throw that away.

 

[LE Greys]

Have to admit I expected things to go completely the other way, a Labour resurgence in the face of a Lib Dem collapse and SNP slump. Just shows you what I know.

As for the implications, I reckon that President Salmond (God forbid) has a good chance to get his referendum through, although I doubt he'll win. If it had happened ten years ago, then an independent Scotland would have been in with a good chance of success, plenty of oil and a recovering economy. Now, with the oil tailing off, it would be a big mistake. What's more, it would hurt the tourist trade if the English all had to change their money when they cross the border, especially if it was more convenient to go to Ireland or France. And remember that's it's a one-way ticket. England might be happy to lend to Scotland afterwards, but that's all. He could find himself running a country with its major asset gone, a flagging tourist trade and not much else. No, once the arguments get out there, I reckon people will see sense.

 

[Zoe]

As for the implications, I reckon that President Salmond (God forbid) has a good chance to get his referendum through

Unless Scotland decided to move away from the Westminster government system then he wouldn't be President. You would either have the Queen remaining as head of state with a Governor General appointed to represent her in Scotland or you'd have a figurehead President.

As for the referrendum, there will almost certainly be one unless there is a rebellion in the SNP and I doubt that.

 

[Bittern]

Have to admit, I feel bad for Tavish Scott. Poor guy put a lot into the ScotDems and I believe attempted to distance them with the ConDems in London and the pending cuts. I saw him on TV today and he looked very saddened. He didn't quite deserve what happened to him last night.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Have to admit, I feel bad for Tavish Scott. Poor guy put a lot into the ScotDems and I believe attempted to distance them with the ConDems in London and the pending cuts. I saw him on TV today and he looked very saddened. He didn't quite deserve what happened to him last night.

Agreed. He did try, and although i didnt vote for his party I never expected this. He's a v nice guy actually, iv met him on the ferry from shetland funilly enough and he is human

 

[Eng274]

Unless Scotland decided to move away from the Westminster government system then he wouldn't be President. You would either have the Queen remaining as head of state with a Governor General appointed to represent her in Scotland or you'd have a figurehead President.

As for the referrendum, there will almost certainly be one unless there is a rebellion in the SNP and I doubt that.

An independent Scotland would probably closely resemble the Isle of Man; a crown dependency, but a completely independent state in its own right. The title of the head honcho would probably still be First Minister or Prime Minister.

The differing currency problem touched upon previously is actually experienced when travelling from the Isle of Man (and also Scotland, funnily enough!!) as England doesn't readily accept Scottish notes or Manx notes.

 

[Zoe]

An independent Scotland would probably closely resemble the Isle of Man; a crown dependency, but a completely independent state in its own right. The title of the head honcho would probably still be First Minister or Prime Minister.

The differing currency problem touched upon previously is actually experienced when travelling from the Isle of Man (and also Scotland, funnily enough!!) as England doesn't readily accept Scottish notes or Manx notes.

Scotland would be an independent sovreign nation and Salmond would most likely be Prime Minister but this is not the same as head of state. If Scotland keeps the Queen then I'd think a Governor General would be appointed.

As for currency issues, would have thought Scotland would consider joining the Euro.

 

[Bittern]

Salmond stated once that the preference is to remain with the pound.

 

[Tom B]

The ironic thing is that in some parts of England, the euro is accepted far more readily than a Scottish banknote!

 

[LE Greys]

Well, in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (and Scotland for that matter) you can still spend pounds Stirling. In a bigger country like Scotland, I'd expect that there would be a Scottish central bank with an independent interest rate. It would probably be closer to the old Irish Pound (IIRC, they weren't legal tender in the North) as a completely separate currency, the rate of which would fluctuate against Stirling. I'm no economist, but most likely they would devalue it for a while, then it might stabilise at about 50p, maybe climbing back up again afterwards. I think Jersey can set its own interest rates, probably the other islands as well, but their currency is pegged to Stirling (and interchangeable) which is very helpful to them. They can set their own tax rates, and that brings in a lot of money. Maybe that's a future for the Scottish economy, a tax haven.

 

[me123]

As for currency issues, would have thought Scotland would consider joining the Euro.

Joining the European single currency is probably the most likely option. Scotland (especially the SNP, if they were in charge as they probably would be at that point) would want membership to the EU, which would require us to join the eurozone. Unless the EU accept the unusual circumstances surrounding independence and allow us to keep Sterling (given that the remainder of the UK would probably still be on Sterling). Unless we don't join the EU, the Pound Scots is very unlikely to happen.

Most recent indications are that the monarch shall remain; leaving us either in a situation like Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries; or perhaps even like a Crown Dependency (such as Jersey or Guernsey).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (and Scotland for that matter) you can still spend pounds Stirling.

I reckon they'll stop doing that soon. Probably soon after they realise that there is no such currency

Pounds Sterling is becoming more acceptable in all its guises, but there are still issues about it. Despite various attempts, no law has been passed to ensure that Scottish (or Northern Irish) notes are accepted where an equivalent English note will be.

 

[Zoe]

Most recent indications are that the monarch shall remain; leaving us either in a situation like Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries; or perhaps even like a Crown Dependency (such as Jersey or Guernsey).

A crown dependency wouldn't be full independence though so I wouldn't have thought the SNP would go for that option.