Jump to content
Baldbloke

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

Recommended Posts

We've endured 10 years of hung parliaments, coalitions and minority government and the result was petulant gridlocked misery with the electorate completely excluded from the process as competing egos and vested interests jockeyed for position and leadership, vision and firm government went to the wall. It produced plenty of dumb designed-by-committee legislation that did more harm than good, but achieved absolutely nothing of any positive value whatsoever, just wasted a decade of everyone's lives.

The idea of being stuck in that seventh circle of Hell in perpetuity does not appeal at all.  

 

And the government wasn't elected by a minority. That is pure sophistry. No one votes for a coalition in democratic elections. The losing parties are not a single entity. If they were they would have stood as one. Lumping them together after the event to try and contrive a counterfeit loser's majority for something that wasn't on the ballot paper in the first place is a nonsense and insults the intelligence of the electorate.

Edited by Gimlet
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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😀)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D Its not gonna change anything. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :D 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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. 

 

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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.