Should a referendum on Scottish independence only include people living in Scotland?

[daltontrees]

15 hours ago, trigger_andy said:

You really do seem bitter that your rather chaotic and impossible to follow views of politics are not represented so you think the current system is not working because regardless what party you vote for your own tick list is not covered.

 

Your own PR System would still see the Tories win, and by a good margin. That would still mean the majority are being represented.

 

Whatever I think of Big J's politics, I'd say the views are not at all chaotic and, far from being impossible to follow, are clear and  well argued.

 

I think you are consistently and repeatedly missing the point. The tories got more votes than anyone else, but that's not a majority of votes. Majority means more than 50%. The current system does nothing for the 55% (the majority) of voters who did not vote for the tories. It is impossible for FPTP not to result in constant resentment unless the majority is almost unanimous.

[daltontrees]

15 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

I disagree J.

 

Let’s have a winner and let them get on with it, no coalition, no consensus, here’s the job, get on with it, if you fuck it up you’re out on your ear in 5 years.

Bizarre! How about a system that doesn't let any one party fuck things up? Better, no? Instead of government policy lurching from one side to the other. It shouldn't be series of partisan experiments.

[Richard 1234]

3 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Whatever I think of Big J's politics, I'd say the views are not at all chaotic and, far from being impossible to follow, are clear and  well argued.

 

I think you are consistently and repeatedly missing the point. The tories got more votes than anyone else, but that's not a majority of votes. Majority means more than 50%. The current system does nothing for the 55% (the majority) of voters who did not vote for the tories. It is impossible for FPTP not to result in constant resentment unless the majority is almost unanimous.

I don’t think you will get a majority of people in a country of any decent sized electorate to ever agree on one party? Too many opposing views.

big j is all over the map. He’s wearing a yellow suit with blue shirt a red tie and green shoes( or some order of above colours) (said in jest?)

[trigger_andy]

4 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Whatever I think of Big J's politics, I'd say the views are not at all chaotic and, far from being impossible to follow, are clear and  well argued.

 

In my opinion J's politics are chaotic. Juts because they are written in an eloquent way does not change that. They range from  left wing, centralist to extreme right wing. That to me is impossible to follow, the fact that he repeatedly stated no party represents him and his ideals somewhat backs that up. 

 

7 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I think you are consistently and repeatedly missing the point. The tories got more votes than anyone else, but that's not a majority of votes. Majority means more than 50%. The current system does nothing for the 55% (the majority) of voters who did not vote for the tories. It is impossible for FPTP not to result in constant resentment unless the majority is almost unanimous.

 

What point am I missing? If you have 100 votes and one person has 45% of those votes and one person has 25% and another 20% and a person with 5% and so on what individual has the majority of votes? I'm going to assume you will argue no one. Where as in a democracy the person with the majority is clearly the person with 45%. 

 

I simply do not agree with your assessment of FPTP and as much as your welcome to it no one really cares.  Its not gonna change anything. 

[trigger_andy]

9 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Bizarre! How about a system that doesn't let any one party fuck things up? Better, no? Instead of government policy lurching from one side to the other. It shouldn't be series of partisan experiments.

 

Better to have lots of parties fuck things up right? Then we'd have no idea who was to blame and to whom to vote in the next election. What an utterly pointless system. 

 

We give (or should) give the party with the most votes the right to govern unhindered for a set number of years and if we see they are not doing the job we vote them out and replace them with another. You're ideals seems like the perfect circle of hell. 

 

Neither system is perfect, and as long as we dont wish to hold the MP's personally accountable for their actions and manifestos it will continue to be quite imperfect. But Id much rather FPTP than PR. Thankfully FPTP will remain in place. 

 

Maybe we should have a FPTP or PR Poll?  

[Mick Dempsey]

33 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Bizarre! How about a system that doesn't let any one party fuck things up? Better, no? Instead of government policy lurching from one side to the other. It shouldn't be series of partisan experiments.

All depends on one’s definition of fucking things up doesn’t it?

Some might say Thatcher’s reform of union law did just that, others would say it was necessary reform.

[Baldbloke]

 

What point am I missing? If you have 100 votes and one person has 45% of those votes and one person has 25% and another 20% and a person with 5% and so on what individual has the majority of votes? I'm going to assume you will argue no one. Where as in a democracy the person with the majority is clearly the person with 45%. 

 

I simply do not agree with your assessment of FPTP and as much as your welcome to it no one really cares. [emoji3] Its not gonna change anything. 

 

Precisely.

 

PR would have seen a continuation of Remain sympathetic MPs stopping what the majority voted on in the referendum 3.5 years ago. Coalitions of different parties hinder decisions, allow minor parties to use blackmail to introduce odd legislation, and never last. The reason why the Tories got in is that the public (including many who usually vote elsewhere) decided that they were being taken aa fools by Remain MPs, and put their cross with the only viable party that was promising to remove us from the EU.

Both the referendum, the delay in implementing the result, and the last GE should have taught those that are supposed to represent us, and what we want, a serious lesson.

 

However, because they usually use us in Scotland as the U.K. guinea pigs I wouldn’t be against a trial of PR in Scotland though after being shown how it would reduce the number of SNP seats[emoji3]

[Guest Gimlet]

It's taught the BBC a lesson. Laura Kuenssberg and Emily Maitlis are traumatised. I love watching the appalled disbelief on their angry little faces. 

[Mick Dempsey]

23 minutes ago, Gimlet said:

It's taught the BBC a lesson. Laura Kuenssberg and Emily Maitlis are traumatised. I love watching the appalled disbelief on their angry little faces. 

How so? 

[Guest Gimlet]

It's taught them that their approved liberal left metropolitan mindset is not in any way representative of wider society. 

 

I don't imagine for one minute though that it will encourage them to become more representative. They'll just fight all the harder to re-educate the plebeian masses. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Gimlet