Scottish independence

besilarius · December 07, 2013, 08:52:36 AM

http://harddawn.com/why-america-must-say-no-to-scotlands-independence-from-great-britain/

(please note before blowing a fuse, this is a satire site, something like The Onion.)
Still, some very nicely done insults.

bayonetbrant · November 16, 2015, 10:14:29 PM

JudgeDredd · November 25, 2015, 03:47:50 PM

lol O0

Boggit · November 28, 2015, 10:42:12 AM

What is scary is the broken voting system. 1 million Scottish voters get 56 SNP seats in Parliament. 4 million UKIP voters get 1 (yes, ONE!) seat in Parliament, and the conservatives get an overall MAJORITY in Parliament with 36% of the vote. Is our "democracy" screwed up or what?

On the basis of the last election if you compare Scottish SNP voting power to those who voted UKIP their individual votes are worth 224 UKIP votes each (on the basis of 4*56). Now that's a hefty weighting in favour of the SNP.

JudgeDredd · November 28, 2015, 01:39:07 PM

I understand that - but the proportional representation that was about to make an appearance was bastardised by the Tories into something that wasn't even anywhere near PR and as such, rejected by Joe Public - mainly because they couldn't understand wtf the Tories were talking about.

PR itself could potentially have issues mind - such as requiring cross party support as no majority party would likely be an option. This would likely result in either things not getting done or "tit for tat" politics....you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Ultimately, what works for one will not work for another.

And add to this. In 2010 Scotland had a Tory government with only 1 member in Parliament.

The irony is the government in power at the time is the one that has the ability to change the voting system. And if they have won with a particular voting system, they are unlikely to want to provide a different voting solution.

I don't know that there's a perfect system out there.

Boggit · November 28, 2015, 03:24:03 PM

You're absolutely right. They won't change anything so long as it favours them. Personally, I'm less concerned about coalition government as it requires the different parties to work together, and is more representative of voters as a whole. Sure it is harder to get consensus, but it means that horse trading is "de rigeur", and everybody gets something out of the system, even if not a diktat on the majority of voters. With the present system 36% of voters get their way to the detriment of the effectively disenfranchised 64% majority - as they can effectively be ignored for 5 years.

As Lord Hailsham said in 1974, the system is a "Parliamentary dictatorship", which suits the Tories and their neo-fascist policies just fine. (And I refer to fascism in terms of the promotion of the interests of the wealthy élite to the detriment of the rest of the population. Mussolini would just love Cameron, and Osborne even more).

JudgeDredd · November 28, 2015, 03:38:30 PM

True. Cross party discussion and acceptance/refusal could work...so long as they don't just do it to "damage the government". It would require sensible use of your voting in Westminster. That would probably come with a dismissal of "The Whip" which I cannot abide.

The system needs to be changed. Currently, we have a government that was voted in by around 30% of the population.

Before there's a huge change in the voting process, I would like to see more people getting out to vote. Last time round, it was at 66%. So 34% of the population couldn't be arsed.

undercovergeek · November 28, 2015, 07:42:19 PM

Quote from: Boggit on November 28, 2015, 03:24:03 PM
You're absolutely right. They won't change anything so long as it favours them. Personally, I'm less concerned about coalition government as it requires the different parties to work together, and is more representative of voters as a whole. Sure it is harder to get consensus, but it means that horse trading is "de rigeur", and everybody gets something out of the system, even if not a diktat on the majority of voters. With the present system 36% of voters get their way to the detriment of the effectively disenfranchised 64% majority - as they can effectively be ignored for 5 years.

As Lord Hailsham said in 1974, the system is a "Parliamentary dictatorship", which suits the Tories and their neo-fascist policies just fine. (And I refer to fascism in terms of the promotion of the interests of the wealthy élite to the detriment of the rest of the population. Mussolini would just love Cameron, and Osborne even more).

How do you explain the Blair period then?

JudgeDredd · November 29, 2015, 04:14:55 AM

^18 years of Tory

A monkey could've stood in that election and won

Seriously though. The government cycle in this country is so predictable (or has been in my lifetime). Scaremongering and "better the devil you know" will get you more time in power than perhaps you should.

The latest bollocks about "stick to the plan" and "making difficult decisions" kept a party in power that was telling the British public that there were going to be huge cuts to public services...that's how unelectable Labour were. That was because of Labours screw up in the last 5 years or so of their reign and partly because of the man in charge.

I think probably the truth is that perhaps people aren't as left as they believe they are. Perhaps that's why the Blair-ites were (are) popular. Perhaps there's enough people in Britain who have moved from their poverty stricken background to "almost" middle-classes that they could do without a left government.

First and foremost though - the people that don't vote need to at least get out and put their cross in a box.

undercovergeek · November 29, 2015, 05:52:00 AM

Listening to the radio and watching TV it would same blairism is now a dirty word - the most successful and popular labour leader has been dropped like a hot brick for some reason - the race for the leadership was mainly how much can we bash Blair except Andy burnham, not a fan and not a labour voter but I don't see what he did wrong to deserve the treatment he gets now - they all love him then

You're right about the left - the times mentioned yesterday that what we now consider to be the loony left is actually traditional labour from the 60s and 70s - I think the missing voters are the apathetic youth - there is no engagement in politics - and let's be honest apart from you're favourite party been in power there's no real difference to life under labour or Tory or certainly hasn't been - Corbyn will change people under labour but he will never, ever be in power so that's ok then

Boggit · November 29, 2015, 07:20:33 PM

I find myself agreeing in the main with both UCG and JD.

The sad fact is the lack of differentiation between the parties for the last 25 years and their usual sterile Westminster thinking. Should we be surprised, given the way things are, that people are disengaged from the process? The system doesn't work for most people, and most people don't feel represented. Why then should people feel engaged about politics when they end up feeling that they have no stake in what happens, other than being compelled to follow the rules set by people who fail dramatically to represent the interest of ordinary people?

MetalDog · November 29, 2015, 07:26:32 PM

Quote from: Boggit on November 29, 2015, 07:20:33 PM
I find myself agreeing in the main with both UCG and JD.

The sad fact is the lack of differentiation between the parties for the last 25 years and their usual sterile Westminster thinking. Should we be surprised, given the way things are, that people are disengaged from the process? The system doesn't work for most people, and most people don't feel represented. Why then should people feel engaged about politics when they end up feeling that they have no stake in what happens, other than being compelled to follow the rules set by people who fail dramatically to represent the interest of ordinary people?

That happens here in the States, too. The politicians are so far above the common man in their day to day routine, that they couldn't POSSIBLY have any idea what we go through. It makes drafting and passing legislation for all of us frequently misses the mark.

Boggit · November 30, 2015, 06:18:46 PM

So true. So sad. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation." It seems pretty hollow, given the de facto absence of genuine representation. I think 2 party government in this day and age deeply flawed. While you might agree with some policies, it's rarely the case that one party alone has the best answer to all the problems faced. It's a pity we don't get more diversity in politics. I know it is harder to get consensus, but at least more people get "represented" by multi party government.

If you don't feel you are represented, then what stake do you have in any legislation government makes, especially if it disadvantages you? Why, apart from the oppression of the organs of state to enforce conformity should you comply with laws made by unrepresentative government?

MetalDog · November 30, 2015, 07:23:28 PM

What makes me most sad is that in the U.S. things have gotten to a point where you are on one side or another. You are a Democrat (left) or a Republican (right). There is no meeting in the middle because if you do, you are betraying your party and its principles and values. And what we end up with is name calling and half measures that noone is happy with. And the politicians, they forget that they are elected and are there to serve. Instead, it's "us" against "them."

Staggerwing · November 30, 2015, 07:36:34 PM

Quote from: MetalDog on November 30, 2015, 07:23:28 PM
What makes me most sad is that in the U.S. things have gotten to a point where you are on one side or another. You are a Democrat (left) or a Republican (right). There is no meeting in the middle because if you do, you are betraying your party and its principles and values. And what we end up with is name calling and half measures that noone is happy with. And the politicians, they forget that they are elected and are there to serve. Instead, it's "us" against "them."

The politicians have the biggest stake in fanning the Us-verses-Them-ism flames. It's part of their attempts to either get or stay elected by using scare tactics instead of accumulated merit.