Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Because not many living in Scotland voted to have the Tory party elected into government. There's so few seats here compared to the south that even if we all voted one way it wouldn't take much to have ourselves over ruled by whatever happens in England (or even just London. I mean in this fantasy situation where everyone votes the population of London exceeds that of Scotland). So yes, Democracy isn't that, but I hardly think its a real democracy where the views of an entire country can be discounted by a single city.

The first past the post system distorts election results.

If you look at the 2010 vote, under 20% of Scots voted SNP and over 80% voted for one or other of the three main parties. Labour was top with 42% of the vote.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Because not many living in Scotland voted to have the Tory party elected into government. There's so few seats here compared to the south that even if we all voted one way it wouldn't take much to have ourselves over ruled by whatever happens in England (or even just London. I mean in this fantasy situation where everyone votes the population of London exceeds that of Scotland). So yes, Democracy isn't that, but I hardly think its a real democracy where the views of an entire country can be discounted by a single city.

The first past the post system distorts election results.

If you look at the 2010 vote, under 20% of Scots voted SNP and over 80% voted for one or other of the three main parties. Labour was top with 42% of the vote.

Damn right, proportional representation is the way forward. Nobody's ever going to change it though.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I'm more interested in the very odd restrictions on who can vote, its seems blinking odd to me that Scots born in Scotland but not currently living inside Scotland cannot take part. That of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact they are much more likely to vote No.

For that reason alone I don't trust a damn thing he's saying, in the same way I don't trust a damn thing Cameron says. The fact anyone seems to think him being local, when I see all the damage local ministers do around here makes him a more trustworthy politician really beggars belief.

It really seems to me the only thing Salmon is really interested in is getting a foot note in history. I just hope he doesn't screw Scotland over long term for getting it.

I'd love to get to vote as a born Scot, but as you say where you are born does not count, only where you are living at the time of the vote (so lots of EU citizens living in Scotland will get to vote)

The no campaign has been terrible, and seems the thing most likely to get Scotland to vote yes which is a real shame.

While a yes vote does call to me I feel the yes campaign has just relied too much on 'it'll be ok when it happens' on too many issues, now they might go OK but all it will take is for one thing not to work out (nuclear weapons/other military stuff, EU membership, currency, citizenship etc) to completely stuff any new nation

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'm just waiting for all the bullgak that Westminster pulled over this to come out twenty years down the line. There's already been an indication of it from them Cameron's backdoor dealings with other European leaders in order for them to discredit the independence movement. There's enough at stake for the British government to be doing what they can to screw over the Yes vote as much as they can.

What backdoor dealings? Those countries in Europe which don't want Scottish independence and have stated so do so for their own reasons not because of interference from Cameron. I can see how you would want to believe that evil Cameron is muddying the waters, but it doesn't line up with the facts.

Let's take Spain for example.

The ides that Cameron is influencing Spain is frankly laughable, it would be idiotically naive and were it not for vested interest in believing in Yes camp propaganda it would have no credibility amongst the politically awake whatsoever.
We can prove this with a one word statement: Gibraltar.
Allowing for Spains treatment of Gibraltar and the UK for not giving in to them it is plain as day to anyone with a modicum of independent thought on the subject that doing favours for Cameron is the last thing on the mind of the Spanish government, especially as their firm comments could damage relations with an independent Scotland which they might see as a more friendly partner than the UK. Frankly the UK and Spanish government cant agree on what colour to paint a chair and are not historically on friendly terms in Europe either.
Nevertheless the Spanish government has spoken out against Scottish referendum and has gone on record to claim that it would veto Scottish EU entry. And to make this clear if Spain exercises its right to veto the matter is settled, for that applications anyway. Scotland cant have it their way no matter how many hissy fits Alex Salmond throws, in the same manner that De Gaulles veto prevented UK entry into the EEC back in the 60's. It only takes one to piss in the porridge.

So why would Spain veto Scottish entry?

1. Because they have somehow forgotten about Gibraltar and want to do favours for Cameron, As "project fea"' tinfoilers would claim.

or

2. Because if Scotland gains independence and becomes part of the EU the Basque territories will want to seceed from Spain and this will cause a lot of strife in that country just when things with ETA were settling.

Spain cant do anything about the Scottish referendum, but they can make sure that an independent Scotland doesn't get what it wants, and will follow this policy out of pure self interest.
Spain wants an independent Scotland setting off the Basques like it wants a hole in the head, and it doesn't need Cameron to point this out


Now for the rest of Europe.

Italy is in the same position over Sardinia and France with Corsica, and for that matter the Uk is with Wales. All of which will kick off if Scotland goes independent. You might see that it doesnt require any backroom dealings from an evil Cameron for the French and Italians not to want this very much.

Germany wants a strong UK to counter France, a weaker UK will not be a good counterbalance. Though this doesnt leave as strong a self interest leaning as for the French Italians and Spanish,

Norway is concerned as it shares oil fields with the UK, for Salmond to have a hope in hell at delivering on his economic promises he will need to pump oil faster to sell it faster, this drains out of a cross border supply and will force Norway to step up production or lose out, or at a minimum trust a Salmond led Scotland to keep to its agreements, and as you will soon see that sort of trust may prove difficult. As the Norwegians have wanted to husband their oil resources for long term economic benefit they are concerned with a change of balance. The UK and Norway doest share good relations, the Norwegians like a lot of Europe don't buy Salmond's rhetoric and rare reasonably concerned,
If that doesn't convince you remember that Salmond made an extraordinary threat that if Scotland is denied EU membership it will ban travel of EU vessels through its territorial waters. Not only is this illegal but was seen as a blockade of Norway, by the Norwegian press amongst others, and led to official protests. As Norway is not part of the EU this was a gross insult as the primary victim of Salmonds threat wasnot a nation state with a hat in the ring of the EU process to accept or reject Scottish membership. Maybe you might see how this could piss off Norway somewhat.
No, it doesn't require Cameron to make the Scottish independence unwelcome in Norway, Salmond is doing a very good job of pissing off their government and people all on his own.
However were it not for Salmond I think Norway would have far less problems unlike Spain, Italy and France, Given a leader to talk to that Norway could realistically trust these problems could disappear, were Sturgeon in control they would likely never have happened.

Other European countries have not really made fee,lings known, either evil Cameron hasn't bothered visiting them to spread anti-Scottish poison, or you could more reasonable conclude that an independent Scotland has no ramifications on their own countries and is therefore not their business.

I can see why Yes campers want to tinfoil up some evil Cameron interference, the truth about Scotland's position is less palletable and Cameron is not popular in Scotland. However you really ought not to base the future of a country on SNP hysteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

It has everything to do with independence because if the result is a No the monarchy will be kept, if the vote is a Yes there are strong indications it will not.

Alex Salmon has already said that the monarchy will be kept in the event of a yes vote.

Besides an independent Scotland becoming a republic would almost certainly require a referendum so its entirely possible that the monarchy will live on, although I hope not.

The good news - for you at least, is that If there is a Yes vote you will get your way.
The less good news is that Alex Salmond is telling Scots what he wants them to hear and has no intention to be honest anytime soon. Though I dont thing you need mind as if monarchist Scots vote Yes it will be too late later.

The Scottish governments position on the monarchy is that it will remain as long as the people want it to do so. If you know how to read political speak this is a way of saying that there will be a rather swift referendum on the monarchy post independence with official favour on abolition. I strongly suspect the referendum debate will be cardstacked as Salmond is not known for his integrity and once fully in power will not be easily accountable.

Besides Salmond doesn't want to be upstaged by the Queen in any way, anyone who knows anything about that mans character should be able to see this, in a way he was like Blair, but Blair had no effective option to become President, Salmond can, Salmond will.

This will not end well, but you likely wont realise what a good thing you had until its gone.

I'd support a change in the way the UK operates but I think it's a better idea to stick together...

 Wolfstan wrote:
If the royal bloodline was still of Stuart blood would independence still be an issue?

If everything politically was the same, but the you had a Stuart King / Queen would it matter?

*I meant to say that I have no opinion either way over this, but I do find it interesting.

Texas looks forward to Scottish independence. Its the toe hold we need to make Britain part of Greater Texas.
You just need to learn a little Spanish...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Because not many living in Scotland voted to have the Tory party elected into government. There's so few seats here compared to the south that even if we all voted one way it wouldn't take much to have ourselves over ruled by whatever happens in England (or even just London. I mean in this fantasy situation where everyone votes the population of London exceeds that of Scotland). So yes, Democracy isn't that, but I hardly think its a real democracy where the views of an entire country can be discounted by a single city.

The first past the post system distorts election results.

If you look at the 2010 vote, under 20% of Scots voted SNP and over 80% voted for one or other of the three main parties. Labour was top with 42% of the vote.

This, in a nutshell. A lot of people bang on about how Scotland isn't represented in Government. But that glosses over two crucial facts:

-This is a democracy. Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. There are 63.2 million people living in the UK. It would not be fair or democratic if one tenth of the population of a country got to have a major influence over the other nine tenths.

-Not every voter in every SNP seat actually voted for the SNP. The First past the post system means that they got the highest percentage of votes in those seats, but a good chunk of voters voted every other which way. If you actually look closer, Labour, Tory, and Lib Dem combined actually scored about 75% of the vote. Or to be more precise, the Tories and Lib Dems netted roughly a million out of two and a half million votes(that being the turnout). And they're the current administration, But only roughly 500,000 of them voted SNP. And they currently control Scotland in terms of seats.

So who's more democratic now?

 Orlanth wrote:

Nevertheless the Spanish government has spoken out against Scottish referendum and has gone on record to claim that it would veto Scottish EU entry.

They didn't. The Spanish Prime Minster said that Scotland would need to apply for EU membership following a Yes vote but reality it wouldn't take long for Scotland to rejoin given that we already meet all the criteria for EU membership. The Spanish foreign minster has also said that they wouldn't interfere. The rest of the international issues that you mentioned are also of only small significance. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 Orlanth wrote:
I strongly suspect the referendum debate will be cardstacked as Salmond is not known for his integrity and once fully in power will not be easily accountable.

Are you really trying to claim that an independent Scotland will become a banana republic? That's a new low, even for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

-This is a democracy. Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. There are 63.2 million people living in the UK. It would not be fair or democratic if one tenth of the population of a country got to have a major influence over the other nine tenths.
So who's more democratic now?

An independent Scotland would give the whole population democratic influence over the government. That sounds pretty democratic to me. The Scottish parliament uses the Additional Member System which is a hybrid of first past the post and proportional voting so Scottish elections are more democratic than UK general elections. There is little incentive to vote SNP in general elections so most people don't but that's neither here nor there. In Holyrood elections however the SNP has a massive majority (44% Vs 28% Labour and 13% Tory).

I would just like to point out that although I live just over 100 miles away from London, down on the south coast, I feel detached from London. Especially as down here in Bournemouth it's a majority of Tories & Lib Dem's. I think the whole "out of touch" or "not representing us" is not something unique to Scotland.

Yeah it's a definite UK wide thing. It's one part of the Yes campaign I dislike. I think this could be an attempt at greater reform for the UK rather than justify cutting ourselves off from everyone else.

Why do both sides of this debate insist that their opposite number lay out exactly how things are going to be, FOREVER, and that nothing can ever change after the referendum? It's absolutely bananas.

There may/may not be other referenda after this one. So what? There'll definitely be elections where political parties who have wildly/slightly different agenda from the current mob (either current mob) will or won't get into power. People don't seem to gibber and howl that the Labour manifesto for the 2020 election must be published, in detail, tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Note - not referring to folk on here gibbering and howling, more the politicians and media)

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Nevertheless the Spanish government has spoken out against Scottish referendum and has gone on record to claim that it would veto Scottish EU entry.

They didn't. The Spanish Prime Minster said that Scotland would need to apply for EU membership following a Yes vote but reality it wouldn't take long for Scotland to rejoin given that we already meet all the criteria for EU membership. The Spanish foreign minster has also said that they wouldn't interfere. The rest of the international issues that you mentioned are also of only small significance. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Fact check time:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/spain-could-veto-independent-scotland-says-minister/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html
These sources, not all UK press say Spain will likely veto.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/304495/Spain-will-not-veto-an-independent-Scotland-joining-EU
For fairness this article supports you but is dated 2012, the rest are dated 2013 and 2014.

So maybe in the past Spain was not going to veto, but now with rising Basque problems they are. However if you eat enough porridge you can hear the soothing words of Wee Eck telling Spain what to do so they wont exercise their rights. Catalonia is a long way from Glasgow so maybe they don't exist right?


Also vetoing Scotlands membership of the EU is not 'interference', Spain has the right to be consulted and has the right to vote. Spain however has not and will not interefer on the Scottish referendum.

....but reality it wouldn't take long for Scotland to rejoin given that we already meet all the criteria for EU membership.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10418890/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-accept-the-EU-template.html

As Salmond states Scotland will not accept the Euro, he will be looking at years of negotiations to join, or fast capitulation from him. As the Croatians found out to join the EU at present means signing up the way Brussels wants it, not how you want it.

Also the EU application process takes time, and the speed of it is government by Brussels not Holyrood. Also as with new entries special exemptions will likely not be possible. Even Sturgeon admitted that Scotland will lose access to the UK rebate, and is she sees the reality of problems, why wont you,
Oh sorry, of course Salmond will tell Europe what to do, and they will all be eating out of his hands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9805197/Alex-Salmond-No-prospect-of-an-independent-Scotland-joining-the-euro.html

The rest of the international issues that you mentioned are also of only small significance. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This is also not mountain out of molehill, the SNP claim of automatic entry in Europe and keeping the pound are key policy untruths, and will have lasting consequences. Just because we can prove this is not 'project fear' doesnt mean you now get to say the issues don't matter. You know they matter or Yes camper wouldnt have tried to pass them off as scares, molehill issues aren't scary.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I strongly suspect the referendum debate will be cardstacked as Salmond is not known for his integrity and once fully in power will not be easily accountable.

Are you really trying to claim that an independent Scotland will become a banana republic? That's a new low, even for you.

Allowing for the way Salmond allowed the mishandling of the residents of the Menie on behalf of his buddy Donald Trump I have reason to be sceptical.
The police brutality was caught on video you know, and yes Salmond was the enabler for these shenanigans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10795056/Alex-Salmond-Europe-could-be-barred-from-Scottish-waters-if-we-lose-EU-membership.html

Also the threats to close the North Sea to EU shipping, was from an EU conference in Bruges, so it's official and not a bar stool comment. Its the sort of mad rhetoric you would expect from Robert Mugabe or Iran. Seriously, I am not on a new low, but maybe you are high on SNP propaganda.

[quote=Palindrome 603565 7000717 f3dd8c18f92d31740356660b751331e2.jpg

 Ketara wrote:

-This is a democracy. Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. There are 63.2 million people living in the UK. It would not be fair or democratic if one tenth of the population of a country got to have a major influence over the other nine tenths.
So who's more democratic now?

An independent Scotland would give the whole population democratic influence over the government.

I know it's a very naive thing to expect, but it would be great if both sides could actually present just the facts with no spin. Genuinely let the public decide. At the moment neither side can say hand on heart that they aren't fiddling the information.

Yes they can.

They'd just be lying.

 Palindrome wrote:


An independent Scotland would give the whole population democratic influence over the government. That sounds pretty democratic to me.

It's democratic already. The whole population of the United Kingdom has influence over the British Government, in proportion to the number of people voting. One man, one vote. Six million Scotsmen, six million votes. Democratic influence according to population count.

You can say that this means that Englishmen or Welshmen get to have things to do with running Scotland, but then Scotsmen get to vote on things to do with Wales, Ireland and England. So quid pro quo. Democracy.

The Scottish parliament uses the Additional Member System which is a hybrid of first past the post and proportional voting so Scottish elections are more democratic than UK general elections.

And if we brought that into the general elections, Scotland would continue to have an equivalent amount of influence to what they do now. Every other part of the UK is limited in the same way Scotland is in a general election.

There is little incentive to vote SNP in general elections so most people don't but that's neither here nor there. In Holyrood elections however the SNP has a massive majority (44% Vs 28% Labour and 13% Tory).

The reasons people do not vote SNP in general elections are varied and manifold. Generally speaking though, it's the same reason that people won't be voting UKIP in the General Election, or Green. All of these choices tend to be either protest votes or votes for a specific issue.

The Scottish vote for the SNP to run the Scottish Parliament, primarily because they trust the SNP more to fight their corner in Westminster than they do Labour (who often might actually be in Government, and would thus never fight itself). When the general election rolls around, voting priorities change, and the Scottish people are more inclined to vote Labour into power.

What happens to the estate of the Royal Family if Scotland gets Independence and gets rid of them? I know Salmond say's we'll keep the Queen, but it isn't really up to him in the long run.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What happens to the estate of the Royal Family if Scotland gets Independence and gets rid of them? I know Salmond say's we'll keep the Queen, but it isn't really up to him in the long run.

The Royal Estate will be claimed by Holyrood, it possible the Royal Family wont even get to keep Balmoral.

In any event the SNP backed Land Reform Review Group has already made a stated claim for the Scottish government to nationalise the Crown Estate and absorb it into control from Holyrood. Much of this is the personal property of the Windsors.

Castle of May is personal property of the Windsor family, as is Sandringham. Not sure about Balmoral.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Castle of May is personal property of the Windsor family, as is Sandringham. Not sure about Balmoral.

As the Land Reform Review Group Final Report - The Land of Scotland and the Common Good calls for compulsory purchase of ancestral estate land for the 'common good' that might not make much difference.

Castle of Mey is not ancestral land, it was bought by the Queen Mother in 1952.

Scotland has different land law to England and Wales. A lot of land is owned outright by landlords, not held in feoff from the crown. On various islands for example, the islanders have collected the funds to buy out the landlord and own and run it as a collective. However it is not a compulsory purchase.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Castle of Mey is not ancestral land, it was bought by the Queen Mother in 1952.

Scotland has different land law to England and Wales. A lot of land is owned outright by landlords, not held in feoff from the crown. On various islands for example, the islanders have collected the funds to buy out the landlord and own and run it as a collective. However it is not a compulsory purchase.

You should get a copy of the LRRG report and read it then. They are recommending Holyrood votes itself powers to extend compulsory purchase orders. All the above criteria, private landlords, stately homes, crown estates (both types) are included, as are compulsory collective buyouts and buyouts of urban land.

Looks interesting, will read it now!

Here's the direct link for anybody else.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00426905.PDF

 Ketara wrote:

It's democratic already.

I never said that it wasn't. However Scotland's political leanings are routinely at odds with the rest of the UK with the result that, as a nation, we rarely get the government that we want. An independent Scotland wouldn't face this problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

As the Land Reform Review Group Final Report - The Land of Scotland and the Common Good calls for compulsory purchase of ancestral estate land for the 'common good' that might not make much difference.

Fine by me.

 Palindrome wrote:

I never said that it wasn't. However Scotland's political leanings are routinely at odds with the rest of the UK with the result that, as a nation, we rarely get the government that we want. An independent Scotland wouldn't face this problem.

.

That Government being who? The SNP? As proved, only one person in every twelve out of the entire population of Scotland voted for them in the last General Election, and the Tories/Lib Dems combined had twice as many voters as them.

So who does that leave? Labour? Since I mean, they got more votes than anyone else. And it could just be me, but I could have sworn we've had a Labour administration or two in the last four or five decades.

If I'm wrong though, I mean, please do tell me who this political party is that all the Scots want in charge of the Government that sadly has no luck at it.

 Ketara wrote:

That Government being who? The SNP?

The Tories are apparently the one that we get stuck with. Why do people have such a fixation on the SNP? Scotland has traditionally and consistently voted for left wing parties, at least nominally. In the 2010 general election approximately 17% of the votes went to obviously right wing parties, approximately the same number voted to the right in the 2005 and 2001 general elections as well. You have to go back to 1983 before the Tories managed over 25% of the votes and they were still handily beaten by Labour. Going strictly by Scottish votes the last time that the Tories would have been in power was 1951, although they would have been a coalition government for the rest of the 50's and Labour would have won every election since 1964.

The first government of an independent Scotland would almost certainly be SNP but that's not to say that the second government would be. Whoever it is will certainly be more left wing that what ever party is in Westminster though and that's the entire point.

Its not about democracy, its not about some slavish devotion to the SNP but it is about the politics of the average Scottish voter being markedly different to the average English voter which inevitably means that Scotland is routinely short changed in terms of the elected Westminster government.

All voters in Scotland aren't average though, any more than all voters in England or the UK as a whole.

Why should the right wing leaning voters of the posh Georgian squares south of Princes Street have to submit to the democratic tyranny of the labour voting sink estates of the Gorbals?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All voters in Scotland aren't average though, any more than all voters in England or the UK as a whole.

Why should the right wing leaning voters of the posh Georgian squares south of Princes Street have to submit to the democratic tyranny of the labour voting sink estates of the Gorbals?

Voting trends in Scotland are very clear about this. Scotland is not a city nor is it a region; it is a nation. Besides under a democracy the minority have to put up with the majority's decisions, right?

 Palindrome wrote:

Besides under a democracy the minority have to put up with the majority's decisions, right?

Apparently not, if they disagree hard enough.

 Palindrome wrote:


The Tories are apparently the one that we get stuck with. Why do people have such a fixation on the SNP?

You'll note I mentioned every other party as well. Hardly a fixation.

Scotland has traditionally and consistently voted for left wing parties, at least nominally.

And the rest of the populace often does so. As already discussed, Scotland does not dictate the choice of government alone. This means that for every time that the Labour Party has been in power, voters across the breadth of the UK have voted the same way as the Scots.

In the 2010 general election approximately 17% of the votes went to obviously right wing parties, approximately the same number voted to the right in the 2005 and 2001 general elections as well. You have to go back to 1983 before the Tories managed over 25% of the votes and they were still handily beaten by Labour. Going strictly by Scottish votes the last time that the Tories would have been in power was 1951, although they would have been a coalition government for the rest of the 50's and Labour would have won every election since 1964.

And in certain parts of the rest of the UK, if you broke them off those individually would stay static as well. That's a fairly common phenomenon across Britain, the US, France, and many other places. 'Safe Seats' exist because certain areas have habits of voting certain ways. Swing seats on the other hand, are the ones that veer from to the other. There are both swing seats and safe seats all over the UK, both in Scotland and everywhere else.

The first government of an independent Scotland would almost certainly be SNP

Would it? Labour currently pulls twice as many voters.

but that's not to say that the second government would be. Whoever it is will certainly be more left wing that what ever party is in Westminster though and that's the entire point.

Your point appears to be that if you cordon off a group of safe seats for one party, and then drag in a number of swing seats, the safe seats will have a comfortable majority. And again, I'm not convinced that the data bears out your conclusion.

The Tories and Lib Dems took around a million votes, Labour the same, and the SNP half of that. In other words, you can count on about a 60-70% majority in the favour of the left wing in some shape or form. Considering that Labour is in power roughly half the time in Westminster, and the Lib Dems are in coalition now, how would a 'new' government derived from the above votes really be that much different?

Its not about democracy, its not about some slavish devotion to the SNP but it is about the politics of the average Scottish voter being markedly different to the average English voter which inevitably means that Scotland is routinely short changed in terms of the elected Westminster government.

The average English voter? In which safe seats? In which swing seats? In which communities? From what ethnic background? 'Average' is a very loaded word here, and frankly you simply cannot divide Scotland apart from the UK in that way. The data simply does not support it. I'll extrapolate for you. We've already established that roughly 60-70% of voters in Scotland voted left wing some shape or form. That's combining Labour, Lib Dem, and some of the SNP vote (Labour at 40%, Lib Dems at 20%, and half of the SNP vote at 10%).

Now, compare that to the general results of the rest of the country with Scotland excluded. A very rough approximation would have the Lib Dems scoring at 6,500,000 votes, Labour at 7,500,000 votes, and the Tories at 10,000,000 votes (I'm excluding the BNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, and the rest as roughly cancelling each other as they're relatively split between right and left wing in total for this calculation). That gives Lib Dem and Labour combined a whopping 14,000,000 votes compared to the Tory 10,000,000.

Or in other words, a roughly 60% weighting in favour of the left wing. Not so dissimilar, eh? Now that was after three Labour administrations. If you trace it back to the Labour years, you'll find a 70%+ weighting in favour of the left wing. Just like Scotland.

The thing is Palindrome, you're probably looking at the number of seats allocated on a map of Britain, spotting all the blue around England and the red around Scotland, and going, 'Hey! That lot all votes differently to that other lot! It must be a cultural thing, let's split'. But those maps do not account for the actual proportionate amount of voters in the first past the post system, and how the Lib Dem/Labour vote is split up. You tend to find that whilst the Tories in England outnumber either Labour or Lib Dems individually, they tend to be outnumbered when the two are combined in most instances. But because the left wing vote is split, they win the seat.

In other words, Scotland and England both share the same voting predilections. Therefore the argument that the British Government does not represent Scotland is factually incorrect on just about every level.