#BothVotesSNP

[Granny Danger]

That's a logical fallacy. Your premise necessitates that conclusion. Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the two may be inextricably linked. It's a legitimate point of view.

My issue is with those who argue for independence while paying lip service to the latter.

Maybe I am naively optimistic, but I think it's possible to have a vision for Scotland that at least 60% of the population can buy into. But that message needs to be packaged and sold properly. People need to be convinced that Inpedendence is a means to a desirable end and that the SNP in particular is the vehicle for that.

[Savage Henry]

Maybe I am naively optimistic, but I think it's possible to have a vision for Scotland that at least 60% of the population can buy into. But that message needs to be packaged and sold properly. People need to be convinced that Inpedendence is a means to a desirable end and that the SNP in particular is the vehicle for that.

 

Completely agree.

[Antlion]

Maybe I am naively optimistic, but I think it's possible to have a vision for Scotland that at least 60% of the population can buy into. But that message needs to be packaged and sold properly. People need to be convinced that Inpedendence is a means to a desirable end and that the SNP in particular is the vehicle for that.

Who else would be? Labour have disingenuously tried to pretend that we can be basically a wonderful, autonomous country without being an autonomous country (an idea which convinced no one), and the Tories' whole schtick is that Britain is one single country and should be governed with the same policies (dreamed up in Whitehall) throughout.

I like the Greens, but due to their history, the SNP are the only party at present with a vision for Scotland's future, and the desire to sell it (I await with amusement slab suddenly embracing a new federal settlement).

Basically, as long as the constitutional question dominates, parties which want to win votes will have to have a good, clear and attractive idea of what they want the answer to look like. If slab and the Tories split the unionist vote between some mythical federal solution and staunch, Churchill-esque London-centricity, then the SNP should be able to build 60% support for a normal nation state.

[Wee Willie]

Surely the idea is that one (hopefully) follows the other.

With the status quo we will never have a fair society.

It will take independence for that to happen.

Therefore it's a must.

 

That's a logical fallacy. Your premise necessitates that conclusion. Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the two may be inextricably linked. It's a legitimate point of view.

My issue is with those who argue for independence while paying lip service to the latter.

I must be missing something.

A logical fallacy? But it's a legitimate point of view?

I don't understand.

My point is that while Scotland is part of the UK we can never have a fair and just society (in Scottish terms).

Of course we can try and alleviate some of the injustices but while a Scottish government has one hand behind it's back

it's impossible to do so with any real sense of commitment.

 

My issue is with those who argue for independence while paying lip service to the latter.

Who are these people?

[Antlion]

A fair and just Scotland would require a radically different policy platform, as well as a government incredibly benevolent towards Scotland, in Westminster. Why would a UK government which can afford to have no representatives at all in Scotland make its priority a fairer and more just Scotland? There's no impetus. The UK is too imbalanced a "union" to cater to Scotland (and nor should it). The only thing making such a ridiculous and outdated form of political union endure is its history and the attendant British political, national and cultural identity it has fostered over the last few centuries in a significant number of people.

[Wee Willie]

A fair and just Scotland would require a radically different policy platform, as well as a government incredibly benevolent towards Scotland, in Westminster. Why would a UK government which can afford to have no representatives at all in Scotland make its priority a fairer and more just Scotland? There's no impetus. The UK is too imbalanced a "union" to cater to Scotland (and nor should it). The only thing making such a ridiculous and outdated form of political union endure is its history and the attendant British political, national and cultural identity it has fostered over the last few centuries in a significant number of people.

My effin' point exactly

[Savage Henry]

I must be missing something.

A logical fallacy? But it's a legitimate point of view?

I don't understand.

My point is that while Scotland is part of the UK we can never have a fair and just society (in Scottish terms).

Of course we can try and alleviate some of the injustices but while a Scottish government has one hand behind it's back

it's impossible to do so with any real sense of commitment.

My issue is with those who argue for independence while paying lip service to the latter.

Who are these people?

Yeah I didn't phrase that too well. The way you presented it was a logical fallacy. It is of course possible to argue that a fairer society isn't going to come as part of the union. I don't necessarily agree with that. But I'm supportive of independence if it aids that process. If it comes as part of the Union, so be it.

[Wee Willie]

Yeah I didn't phrase that too well. The way you presented it was a logical fallacy. It is of course possible to argue that a fairer society isn't going to come as part of the union. I don't necessarily agree with that. But I'm supportive of independence if it aids that process. If it comes as part of the Union, so be it.

Fair do's but can you ever in your wildest dreams see the Tories or Labour agreeing to a fairer Westminster (and that other place).

That would have to happen for Nirvana (my word) to occur.

But my point is that no matter what happens in the UK, Scotland will always be a wee bit of it.

In a fair & just UK what would happen if, lets say, a large majority of Scots MP's voted to get rid of Trident from Scotland.

How would a fair and just UK deal with that?

How also would a fair & just Westminster deal with a large majority of Scots MP's voting not to bomb a middle east country?

I would say it would be ignored and that we could never get a better Scotland while we are part of the UK.

Independence - Nae ifs or buts

[Antlion]

Fair do's but can you ever in your wildest dreams see the Tories or Labour agreeing to a fairer Westminster (and that other place).

That would have to happen for Nirvana (my word) to occur.

But my point is that no matter what happens in the UK, Scotland will always be a wee bit of it.

In a fair & just UK what would happen if, lets say, a large majority of Scots MP's voted to get rid of Trident from Scotland.

How would a fair and just UK deal with that?

How also would a fair & just Westminster deal with a large majority of Scots MP's voting not to bomb a middle east country?

I would say it would be ignored and that we could never get a better Scotland while we are part of the UK.

Independence - Nae ifs or buts

This is, in a nutshell, why countries which call themselves counties generally don't join incorporating unions with far larger neighbours. Considering how amazing Better Together (and more recently David Mundell) kept telling us how great union was, it's staggering not that a single nation on earth (of which I'm aware) is currently trying to dissolve its existing parliament and merge into a new state with its larger neighbour, sending its politicians to be a minority there. In terms of specifics, the trajectory for all nations over the last few decades has also to been to break away from Westminster rule because controlling domestic politics nationally is more attractive and sensible a proposition.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This is, in a nutshell, why countries which call themselves counties generally don't join incorporating unions with far larger neighbours. Considering how amazing Better Together (and more recently David Mundell) kept telling us how great union was, it's staggering not that a single nation on earth (of which I'm aware) is currently trying to dissolve its existing parliament and merge into a new state with its larger neighbour, sending its politicians to be a minority there. In terms of specifics, the trajectory for all nations over the last few decades has also to been to break away from Westminster rule because controlling domestic politics nationally is more attractive and sensible a proposition.

What about the 28 states that make up the EU?

[Afro]

In partial relation to the OP, after having a look over the list results, it seems the SNP missed out on the final list seat in the North East by just 279 votes.

 

Add in that they lost Dumbarton to Labour by 109 votes and it is hardly the disaster the MSM are painting.

[Mr Bairn]

In partial relation to the OP, after having a look over the list results, it seems the SNP missed out on the final list seat in the North East by just 279 votes.

 

Add in that they lost Dumbarton to Labour by 109 votes and it is hardly the disaster the MSM are painting.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying it's a disaster but given what happened this time last year it was certainly a pretty disappointing night. If there was a WM election today you'd certainly be looking at the SNP going backwards, IMO.

[The Master]

In partial relation to the OP, after having a look over the list results, it seems the SNP missed out on the final list seat in the North East by just 279 votes.

It was nowhere near 279 votes.

After the sixth round of allocation in the North East, the totals looked like this:

CON 17,170 (1+3 seats)

GRN 15,123 (0+0 seats)

SNP 13,708 (9+0 seats)

LAB 12,930 (0+2 seats)

LIB 9,222 (0+1 seats)

The difference between the SNP and Conservatives is 3,462, which translates into the SNP needing an extra 34,630 votes.

[ayrmad]

I don't think anyone is saying it's a disaster but given what happened this time last year it was certainly a pretty disappointing night. If there was a WM election today you'd certainly be looking at the SNP going backwards, IMO.

They should be going backwards, they've nearly got all the seats.

 

It's easy to double fcuk all, it's impossible to increase on everything.

[Wee Willie]

They should be going backwards, they've nearly got all the seats.

 

It's easy to double fcuk all, it's impossible to increase on everything.

very astute

[Dunning1874]

It was nowhere near 279 votes.

After the sixth round of allocation in the North East, the totals looked like this:

CON 17,170 (1+3 seats)

GRN 15,123 (0+0 seats)

SNP 13,708 (9+0 seats)

LAB 12,930 (0+2 seats)

LIB 9,222 (0+1 seats)

The difference between the SNP and Conservatives is 3,462, which translates into the SNP needing an extra 34,630 votes.

 

Are the figures online anywhere or is it from the excellent spreadsheet that was available to download on here?

[Afro]

It was nowhere near 279 votes.

After the sixth round of allocation in the North East, the totals looked like this:

CON 17,170 (1+3 seats)

GRN 15,123 (0+0 seats)

SNP 13,708 (9+0 seats)

LAB 12,930 (0+2 seats)

LIB 9,222 (0+1 seats)

The difference between the SNP and Conservatives is 3,462, which translates into the SNP needing an extra 34,630 votes.

 

 

You are indeed correct, I made a c**t of the calcs. As you were. 

[The Master]

Are the figures online anywhere or is it from the excellent spreadsheet that was available to download on here?

The total votes for each region are online but you need to do your own dividing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/scotland-constituencies

It's not difficult though. At each round, Actual votes = (Total votes) / (Number of seats won + 1).

Number of seats won is constituency and regional.

[Peppino Impastato]

What about the 28 states that make up the EU?

Did you miss the word incorporating?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Did you miss the word incorporating?

Whoosh . . . .

Did you miss the wink?