Scotland Votes 2011

[CarterUSM]

Interestingly, I have seen it written on a pro independence website that Scotland would likely be a net contributor to the EU? Is this a serious probability?

 

[Nightrider]

Interestingly, I have seen it written on a pro independence website that Scotland would likely be a net contributor to the EU? Is this a serious probability?

Suppose you could always ask the Scottish Goverment for an answer.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/09/08143726/10

 

[CarterUSM]

Suppose you could always ask the Scottish Goverment for an answer.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/09/08143726/10

Interesting, thanks for the link.

 

[Aictos]

So you want the UK to be independent but not Scotland.
Interesting.

You misunderstand me, I want the UK to be independent but the UK to me consists of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scotland is just as important to the union as England is and just as important as Wales is to the union which is why although I fully back a independent UK, I don't support a similar move for Scotland as it's like building a house then taking away the walls, it just weakens the UK.

 

[Nightrider]

You misunderstand me, I want the UK to be independent but the UK to me consists of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scotland is just as important to the union as England is and just as important as Wales is to the union which is why although I fully back a independent UK, I don't support a similar move for Scotland as it's like building a house then taking away the walls, it just weakens the UK.

I'm sure you'll survive if Scotland decides to leave.

 

[Aictos]

I'm sure you'll survive if Scotland decides to leave.

But would Scotland though, it would mean Scotland standing on her own two feet and paying the perks of living north of the border themselves via higher tax increases.

Even though the SNP themselves have said that the only way to balance the books if successful is for rises in taxes to happen, which I can't see being popular with the Scots.

The grass isn't always greener on the other side, remember that!

 

[me123]

No they did not, they didn't win any seats from the Lothian list.

The SNP did get the highest number of votes in every single regional list. However, the d'Hondt system means that they don't necessarily translate into seats.

In the d'Hondt system, the total number of votes are divided by the number of seats already taken (including both constituency and regional seats) +1. As such, parties who do well in the FPTP constituency seats have a harder job to get any regional seats.

Let's look at the regional ballots cast in the Lothians (simplified by removing lots of the smaller parties):

SNP     110,953
LAB      70,544
CON      33,019
GREEN    21,505
MARGO    18,732
LIB D    15,588

SNP clearly won the most votes. Here, but they also won 8 out of the 9 constituency seats in that region. So, under the d'Hondt method, you'll be dividing their total number of votes by the number of seats+1 (ie, 8+1=9). Labour got the other seat, so their total number of votes is divided by 2. Let's see what that does:

SNP     12,328
LAB     35,272
CON     33,019
GREEN   21,505
MARGO   18,732
LIB D   15,588

Straight away, because they've won so many constituency seats, the SNP are greatly disadvantaged in this system. What happens now is that the party/candidate with the most votes (ie, Labour in this case) is elected, their portion of the votes is recalculated:

SNP     12,328
LAB     23,515
CON     33,019
GREEN   21,505
MARGO   18,732
LIB D   15,588

The Tories now have the most votes, and get the second seat. This continues until seven candidates are elected. Because the SNP got so many constituency seats, it becomes really difficult for them to get elected under this system, so they didn't get any of the first seven seats. However, the point of this is to balance out the number of FPTP seats elected to create an element of proportionality. So overall, although the SNP won the most votes and didn't get any seats on the regional list, taking both regional and constituency seats into account, the number of seats won in total is fairly proportional to the number of votes.

Of course, the SNP got a majority here with <50% of the vote, which is quite surprising. It shows that this isn't the most proportional system in the world, but does ridicule the claim that "no party will ever get a majority". People who claimed that are stupid. The d'Hondt system isn't 100% proportional, so things like this can happen. And, even if it were, if >50% of the electorate vote for one party, they will win a majority. Voting systems might change the goalposts slightly, but it's ultimately the electorate that decides the result of the election.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I do feel very sorry for the Scottish Lib Dems (who aren't bad guys really), and indeed all the Lib Dems up and down the country. They didn't decide to join the Conservatives, and it's been them who've paid the price on a local level. They've been really let down by their party.

 

[Nightrider]

Annabel Goldie, Scottish Tory leader quits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13340641

That's 3 Scottish political leaders who have resigned in less than a week.

 

[me123]

Oh dear... I actually liked her! She talked a lot of sense, and in the 3rd parliament she was the only effective opposition to Mr Salmond. I don't really see why she had to quit; she may not have gained seats, but she didn't lose all that much ground either.

It will now be interesting to see who leads the other three "main" parties in Holyrood, especially for Labour who lost a sizeable chunk of their front bench! Jackie Bailie and Johann Lamont have to be candidates. I think it's likely to be Alison McInnes or Jim Hume for the Liberals. And I reckon Murdo Fraser for the Tories.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh dear... I actually liked her! She talked a lot of sense, and in the 3rd parliament she was the only effective opposition to Mr Salmond. I don't really see why she had to quit; she may not have gained seats, but she didn't lose all that much ground either.

Seems to be standard tory practice (at least in Westminster) lose the election and you have to resign whether you stood a chance of actually winning or not! Happened to William Hague in 2001, he was never going to win that election but had to stand down afterwards.

 

[Nightrider]

Oh dear... I actually liked her! She talked a lot of sense, and in the 3rd parliament she was the only effective opposition to Mr Salmond. I don't really see why she had to quit; she may not have gained seats, but she didn't lose all that much ground either.

It will now be interesting to see who leads the other three "main" parties in Holyrood, especially for Labour who lost a sizeable chunk of their front bench! Jackie Bailie and Johann Lamont have to be candidates. I think it's likely to be Alison McInnes or Jim Hume for the Liberals. And I reckon Murdo Fraser for the Tories.

Think Ms Goldie had a lot of enemies in the background.

 

[CarterUSM]

That is rather disappointing, I found Miss Goldie one of the better MSP's.

 

[me123]

Seems to be standard tory practice (at least in Westminster) lose the election and you have to resign whether you stood a chance of actually winning or not! Happened to William Hague in 2001, he was never going to win that election but had to stand down afterwards.

Well, at that rate they'll have a new leader every 4-5 years up here!

 

[CarterUSM]

The "enigmatically" named Jackson Carlaw's name is also in the ring for Annabels post, according to todays daily mail.

 

[Zoe]

If Scotland did become independent I would expect the Tories would have reunification as a policy and that may well get them more support in Scotland for people that didn't agree with the independence.

 

[junglejames]

You misunderstand me, I want the UK to be independent but the UK to me consists of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scotland is just as important to the union as England is and just as important as Wales is to the union which is why although I fully back a independent UK, I don't support a similar move for Scotland as it's like building a house then taking away the walls, it just weakens the UK.

The man talks sense! Well in my eyes anyway.

I honestly do not think many Scots want independance anyway. I think they realise they would probably end up worse off.
I myself would be extremely upset if it did happen. I like the UK as it is. Its a slightly strange system we have politically, but it just about works.

Things may have happened between the 2 countries in the past (which actually the Scots at times have more than made up for!!), but this was a long time ago. Lets all get along (which I think on the whole we do).

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A mervellous place to be in my eyes. Wouldnt dream of being anywhere else in the world.

 

[Nightrider]

That is rather disappointing, I found Miss Goldie one of the better MSP's.

She was and is well liked.
Problem was less and less people voted for her party.
If the tories can't win Eastwood with new boundary changes, non tory Barrhead was chopped off it, then its time to go.
Independence would probably save the tory view in Scotland.
As shown by labour and the lib dems, parties who regard Holyrood as some sort of kiddie on parliament will be turned over by the voters.

 

[CarterUSM]

She was and is well liked.
Problem was less and less people voted for her party.
If the tories can't win Eastwood with new boundary changes, non tory Barrhead was chopped off it, then its time to go.
Independence would probably save the tory view in Scotland.
As shown by labour and the lib dems, parties who regard Holyrood as some sort of kiddie on parliament will be turned over by the voters.

I am actually inclined to agree with that. As i have mentioned before , it is a poor motely crew of candidates overall, with many being no more than jumped up councillors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The man talks sense! Well in my eyes anyway.

I honestly do not think many Scots want independance anyway. I think they realise they would probably end up worse off.
I myself would be extremely upset if it did happen. I like the UK as it is. Its a slightly strange system we have politically, but it just about works.

Things may have happened between the 2 countries in the past (which actually the Scots at times have more than made up for!!), but this was a long time ago. Lets all get along (which I think on the whole we do).

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A mervellous place to be in my eyes. Wouldnt dream of being anywhere else in the world.

Well put James, I echo the sentiment. I also believe that most eligible voters do not wish for independence , and just a strong, stable style of government, which the SNP have more or less provided up until now. Not so happy with the culture of spend spend spend, but I am sure the 2 billion quid loan from Westminister will cover up most of that for a while!

 

[Nightrider]

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including Gordon Brown and John Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on).
The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories and myths.
If they argue for the next few years that Scotland is "too wee/too poor/too stupid", they will lose.

 

[me123]

I am actually inclined to agree with that. As i have mentioned before , it is a poor motely crew of candidates overall, with many being no more than jumped up councillors.

Labour actually had some good politicians in there. They were the only party where candidates did not stand on both the list and for a constituency (with a handful of exceptions). The result? They lost dozens of seats, lost dozens of politicians (including some strong figures), and they've been replaced by councillors who really weren't expecting to get anywhere! It's almost funny until you realise that we've now got Labours' third choices as the main opposition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they argue for the next few years that Scotland is "too wee/too poor/too stupid", they will lose.

They need to be careful not to do that, because they will lose. Even the unionists are loyal to their country up here, so if the unionists try and smear Scotland, they'll lose Scotland. Simple as. The swing for independence isn't all that much; greater swings happened on Thursday night.

The other thing they might do is try to play the whole thing down, and I guarantee that won't work. Independence is the SNP's raison d'etre. They're going to push hard for a "yes" vote; and following on from Thursday's results, it's fair to assume that they'll come up with a strong, positive campaign. The "no" group needs a similar campaign if they want to secure the union.

Perhaps the SNP could pay STV to put Braveheart on the night before?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well put James, I echo the sentiment. I also believe that most eligible voters do not wish for independence...

Tends to be about 40% for, 60% against; the polls are rarely consistent on this issue. We'll undoubtedly see more opinion polling around this over the next few years. However, that's not a big swing. I'm sure the "NO2AV" campaign recovered from this swing, and we saw bigger swings on Thursday night. If we're going to be independent, the SNP need to convince the nation that we can go it alone, both in parliament and in their campaign. It's no small task.

 

[junglejames]

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including Gordon Brown and John Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on).
The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories and myths.
If they argue for the next few years that Scotland is "too wee/too poor/too stupid", they will lose.

There is the problem. The No campaign has come up with a very good reason. The best reason out of any campaigns. Problem is, as you say, that argument is likely to alienate them. Scotland couldnt afford independance. Thats nothing against Scotland, its just a fact of life.
The other argument of course, is that the UK is stronger as one. Also, if it works, why fix it.
Only one of those is a really strong argument (although the argument about being stronger isnt half bad, and also very true), but it is one that could lose them the vote if they keep on about it too much. Thats another unfortunate fact of life. Luckily though, a lot of Scots realise themselves that Scotland would struggle. So that can only help.

As for the yes campaign. Where have they given a good reason for it? They havent. Salmond only wants it because of nationalist pride, and possibly a little bit of the old 'Hate the English' mentality.
Reindustrialisation sounds a brilliant reason, until you look deeper. This would require a lot of investment by the Scottish government. Where is this money coming from? Plus what if it goes wrong? When do you stop ploughing money in? You lose a lot of money on a big gamble, and if it doesnt pay off, you will be struggling for a long time. Taxes would probably have to go up more than they will have to anyway, and you will lose all of the benefits you currently have. Bang would go free university tuition. Bang would go the OAPs free bus passes etc etc.

Scotland isnt too stupid, far from it. It used to have the greatest shipbuilding industry in the world, something which the whole world should be eternally grateful for. You look at some of the greatest inventions, and it has a Scotsman behind it (try and find the postcard about trying to keep away from Scots inventions. Its brilliant), but unfortunately the world is quite different now. Yes unfortunately that is partly down to the way Maggie Thatcher mucked you up good and proper.
So now we have to stick together.
If it wasnt for the deficit we have right now, Id be the first person to say the UK government should be putting money into Scottish industry. Try to do something about the shipbuilding industry etc. Unfortunately this cant happen right now (it probably never will happen). If it did happen, yes it would be a risk, like I said before, but with the whole of the UK together, the consequences wont be as severe if the risk backfires.
We should stick together. It makes the UK stronger. Its best for Scotland, its best for England, its best for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[me123]

All MSPs have sworn in, and the elections for presiding officer are now underway.

1st Round:
Christine Grahame (SNP): 32 - eliminated
Tricia Marwick (SNP): 45
Hugh Henry (LAB): 49
Spoiled: 1 (:roll

***********************
2nd Round

Tricia Marwick is the new PO. As she was from the SNP, she must resign her position in the party and therefore reduces their majority by one.

 

[Nightrider]

Is this the real reason why westminster doesn't want Scotland to go.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/economy/861-world-renowned-economist-says-scotland-subsidising-rest-of-uk

 

[yorksrob]

The United Kingdom is here to stay even without Scotland. The only change is that it would be just be the United Kingdom of Southern Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As an Englishman of Irish heritage I've always been perfectly happy with the concept of Britain and the United Kingdom. However, if the Scots go their own way (as is their right(along with the Welsh and Northern Irish)) I don't really see the point of a rump United Kingdom. I'd rather go back to the historical situation of the three kingdoms (one mainly republic now) plus Wales building on their own heritage as independent nations but modern friendly ones.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that the only definate way for the people of Scotland to voice the definative answer to the Referendum is to actually have one and that will be the result of the people...not the politicians.

I credit the people of Scotland with the sense to know exactly what the choices are involved in the final decision.

 

[Greenback]

if the Scots go their own way (as is their right(along with the Welsh and Northern Irish)) I don't really see the point of a rump United Kingdom. I'd rather go back to the historical situation of the three kingdoms (one mainly republic now) plus Wales building on their own heritage as independent nations but modern friendly ones.

I agree. But perhaps there needs to be a referendum for the whole of the UK, as England would certainly be involved if the UK was ever to come to an end.

I think that the only definate way for the people of Scotland to voice the definative answer to the Referendum is to actually have one and that will be the result of the people...not the politicians.

I credit the people of Scotland with the sense to know exactly what the choices are involved in the final decision.

Yes, that would be the case in an ideal world, but there are people who have no interest at all in the choices. They simply decide what to do based on which newspaper they glance through when eating their morning toast.

Then there are others who don't understand the debate, who don;t care and won't vote, and all the other probblems involved with these sorts of things.

However, I do agree that a referendum is the best way forward despite the drawbacks!

 

[yorksrob]

I agree. But perhaps there needs to be a referendum for the whole of the UK, as England would certainly be involved if the UK was ever to come to an end.

Indeed, I don't think Wales and Northern Ireland should be bumped into a decision. But it would be an opportune moment for us all to re-assess the situation.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, my point is that the decision is primarily one for Scotland, but it does affect the other parts of the UK, so why shouldn't the people in the other countries have a say?

Personally, I'd be quite happy with Scottish independence, and quite a few English people state that they want to stop subsidizing Scotland (whether this is actually true or not I don't know), so bring it on!

 

[krus_aragon]

Yes, my point is that the decision is primarily one for Scotland, but it does affect the other parts of the UK, so why shouldn't the people in the other countries have a say?

Everyone should be allowed to have a say, but of course people in England/Wales/NI shouldn't be deciding Scotland's future. As for their respective futures in the union...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, my point is that the decision is primarily one for Scotland, but it does affect the other parts of the UK, so why shouldn't the people in the other countries have a say?

Personally, I'd be quite happy with Scottish independence, and quite a few English people state that they want to stop subsidizing Scotland (whether this is actually true or not I don't know), so bring it on!

It does really make you wander how things were on the different sides on the border before the Act of Union in 1707. If anyone wants a precedent to a referendum vote FOR independance, look to this as such and see what the actual situation was at that time.

I do not understand from reading earlier postings on this thread, how Wales and Northern Ireland came into this discussion. However I will say that during World War II, Winston Churchill made certain promises about the future of Ulster to the Eire government if they revoked their neutrality and joined the Allied countries, which of course Eire did not.