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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
The SNP would fast track Scotland straight into the EU.

There would be no escape.

The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.

So a new start up "Anti-EU" party would immediately thrive and be able to contest the SNPs manoeuvre's into the EU? Especially if they'd be coming off the back of a successful Yes vote.

That's pretty deluded.

There is absolutely no point in you supporting a party that wants to join the EU while the UK is looking to move out of Europe.

 Henry wrote:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.

This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.

I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.

A situation that STV could have prevented. But it was more in the interests of the big two parties to claim that it was too complicated (you poor little stupid proles could never understand something so mind blowingly complex - better to just obey your political masters, they know better) and to insist that it would be unfair, effectively giving two or more votes to some people (because a system where a constituent can be elected with 35% of the vote whilst 65% of the population hates their guts is SO much more fair!).

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.

I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.

That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how UK politics works. At a general election we do not vote for a party, a Prime Minister or a party leader. We vote for our own constituents. From the elected ministers, the one that can hold the confidence of parliament becomes Prime Minister. It is a misunderstanding that is shared by many of our country folk.
It is also a misunderstanding that the main two parties exploit and have no interest in educating the populace about.

STV? - Is this like proportional representation? Genuine question.


As the the leader bit, i completely understand how it orks, i know its consituencies etc, but normally you vote or the party and their leader is to be PM, however i know we dont, as voters, decide the PM, we decide the party through volume of seats\Constituencies.

I just dont like the slighty "well decide" attitude it gives off when internal politics decide the new PM\First Minister of the nation.

However i realsie thats not what i am voting for

The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.

There was literally no reason not to vote for it.

It would have eliminated all this "Vote X Get Y" bullgak.

Single Transferable Vote sounds like a more complicated/less useful AV.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.
Their was literally no reason not to vote for it.

The fact it would give people like the BNP seats in Parliament? That's a pretty good reason for me.

Let's not pretend that AV is some perfect system. Yes, it makes the political makeup of Parliament more akin to that of the country. But it also makes it infinitely easier to get radicals/whackjobs into Parliament, whereupon they can start bargaining for less than salubrious policies in exchange for joining coalitions.

AV is more democratic. FPTP is more stable. Both have pros and cons. At the end of the day, the majority of the country decided they preferred stability over the extra modicum of democracy.

 Ketara wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.
Their was literally no reason not to vote for it.

The fact it would give people like the BNP seats in Parliament? That's a pretty good reason for me.

Let's not pretend that AV is some perfect system. Yes, it makes the political makeup of Parliament more akin to that of the country. But it also makes it infinitely easier to get radicals/whackjobs into Parliament, whereupon they can start bargaining for less than salubrious policies in exchange for joining coalitions.

AV is more democratic. FPTP is more stable. Both have pros and cons. At the end of the day, the majority of the country decided they preferred stability over the extra modicum of democracy.

The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.

If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.

They are a dead party anyway.

I didn't say it was a perfect system I said it would have been better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think FPTP only really works when you have people in the house of lords/parliament that aren't globalist Europhiles.

 Medium of Death wrote:


The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.

If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.

People didn't have to 'turn to' the BNP. There are always racist, sexist, homophobic thuggish fethwits in every society. AV gives them a voice in Government. I'd prefer to the current system over one that permitted that.

That's a reason for it not going through regardless (since you said there was no reason to block it).

There was also the protest vote against the whole "we've abandoned all the policies which would actually benefit people and we promised to stick to if we were in power, just so we can get a chance to ask about something which might increase our chance for more power in the future".

 Ketara wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.

If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.

People didn't have to 'turn to' the BNP. There are always racist, sexist, homophobic thuggish fethwits in every society. AV gives them a voice in Government. I'd prefer to the current system over one that permitted that.

That's a reason for it not going through regardless (since you said there was no reason to block it).

I honestly don't think the BNP would have had any successful political gains in such a system as they would have been pariahs. People may vote for them but they would have been largely ineffective.

I think Democracy as it stands is ultimately flawed through the way it is handled at the moment. I wouldn't trade it in though as I don't feel we have a calibre of "elite" capable or worthy of the power that a more authoritative system would grant them.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.

There was literally no reason not to vote for it.

It would have eliminated all this "Vote X Get Y" bullgak.

Single Transferable Vote sounds like a more complicated/less useful AV.

Blame Nick Clegg.

I blame him for most things, but he's at fault for running a half ass campaign on AV.

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think FPTP only really works when you have people in the house of lords/parliament that aren't globalist Europhiles.

So it only works if they follow your own blend of politics? That's democracy for you.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

I think FPTP only really works when you have people in the house of lords/parliament that aren't globalist Europhiles.

So it only works if they follow your own blend of politics? That's democracy for you.

Well if you value the rest of the world over your own nation then I don't really know what to say.

Globalism is hardly great for everyone anyway.

The Mail doing its bit for Scottish independence.

I can't imagine the Mail has any swing voters as readers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Blame Nick Clegg.

I blame him for most things, but he's at fault for running a half ass campaign on AV.

A half ass campaign for something he half wanted. The Lib Dems always wanted PR.

I read the Daily Mail.


For it's comedic and slightly racist outlook on things.


Btw. look at any DM headline and you'll find that if you scream it it will still make sense. For example.


AHHHHH!! MAY: SNP/LAB PACT 'WORST CRISIS SINCE ABDICATION' AHHHHH!!!


I actually voted for AV at the last election, I really don't get why people didn't go for it. The devil you know I suppose.

Why the Abdication anyway? Is it because the abdicating king, like the DM was a Fascist sympathiser?

 George Spiggott wrote:
Why the Abdication anyway? Is it because the abdicating king, like the DM was a Fascist sympathiser?

Britain will face its biggest constitutional crisis since Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 if Ed Miliband runs Britain with Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May has warned.
In a dramatic intervention in the Election campaign, the Home Secretary questioned whether English voters would accept the 'legitimacy' of a Labour Government backed by Scottish Nationalists.
And she compared the effects of such a pact to the way Britain's governing class was paralysed for months in the 1930s because of King Edward VIII's affair with American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
After being told the public would not accept Simpson as Queen, the crisis was only resolved when Edward abdicated.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055575/Theresa-SNP-Labour-pact-spark-biggest-constitutional-crisis-abdication-Edward-VIII.html#ixzz3YProZzPe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Surely the essentially unelected War Cabinet formed by Churchill in 1940 or the various unelected Prime ministers would be bigger constitutional issues but then the is the Mail so........rabble rabble Scots!1! rabble rabble

Milliband rules out any deal with the SNP or so he says.

Given that the only chance that Labour has of forming a government on the 8th of May will be with the SNP I wonder how much of this is pre-election spin and how much is genuine. Its certainly more fuel for the independence fire.

Its also now very possible that no party will be able to form a majority government and this gak will be dragged out even longer.

I see so Teresa May says so. Comparing the myth of the reasons behind the abdication crisis to a myth of SNP parliamentary dominance over Labour. Nice irony.

 obsidianaura wrote:
I'm thinking about quantitate easing now.

I know printing money devalues your currency against others but I was wondering about the following scenario.

Say the government prints £5 million and gives it so 100 agents. Then the agents go somewhere we don't get on with, like Russia for example.

The 20 agents buy as much gold as they can from Russia then returns with the gold and puts it in the Bank of England's vault.

Does that harm the Russian economy and improve the UK's? Or is there more to it?

Have I just solved the UKs problems in one post?!

Simplest way to put it: if you announce quantitative easing, investors will value your currency a little less (per unit of it, that is), but they'll still have faith in the underlying issuer (your national bank).
If you do any sort of 'clandestine issue' like that, essentially counterfeiting your own currency, you undermine that fundamental underlying confidence in your entire currency / system.

If it ever comes out, the value of the currency involved will nosedive.
If you do it in significant quantities (of issued currency), the chance of it coming out increases ever more (if only because of the number of people involved. Only one/a few has/have to squeak and the whole scheme bites it. It's why conspiracies usually aren't all they're claimed to be, really )

So either you have little to no use for such actions, or it has some use but the risk is immense.

This all without even mentioning the morality of it all (again, it only takes one or two credible whistleblowers, responsibly contacting the proper authorities to put a stop to it, if nothing else).
And not to mention that gold really isn't all it's cracked up to be when it comes to securing currency values (hasn't been for the better part of a century, at least - and good fething riddance, too), although of course your idea might as well concern the clandestine purchase of more useful goods.

Oh, and keep in mind bills are (serial) numbered, again somewhat raising the issue of it all being uncovered and coming out, thus again ruining your credibility for decades to come.


...All this just to give the first few insurmountable objections that come to my mind

 George Spiggott wrote:
I can't imagine the Mail has any swing voters as readers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Blame Nick Clegg.

I blame him for most things, but he's at fault for running a half ass campaign on AV.

A half ass campaign for something he half wanted. The Lib Dems always wanted PR.

The Lib Dems wanted it, but they weren't prepared to fight for it. Clegg could have walked away from the coalition at anytime if he couldn't get a referendum on PR. Instead, he stayed on for the ministerial car, and because he put power before principal. The Lib Dems deserve to wiped out at this election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All this Daily Mail talk makes me laugh. For two years they begged us to say. And we stayed. Now they're saying our votes shouldn't count.

Anybody remember this speech:


It’s only Great Britain because of the greatness of Scotland, and the thinkers, writers, artists, leaders, soldiers, and inventors who have made this country what it is. So a NO vote means faster, fairer, safer and better change. And this is a vital point: Scotland is not an observer in the affairs of this country. Scotland is shaping and changing the United Kingdom for the better … and will continue to shape the constitution.”

David Cameron Sept 16 2014

Well, Dave, we stayed and we're shaping the country, but now you and your newspaper friends are saying it would be illegitimate if the SNP went into government with Labour!!

I thought Conservatives loved the Union?

If they keep talking like that, the Union will unravel very quickly.

I feel like I keep hearing the same record stuck on repeat for some reason...

Any chance we can hear something new?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I feel like I keep hearing the same record stuck on repeat for some reason...

Any chance we can hear something new?

New? The way things are going, you'll get something new all right - the end of the UK!!

Telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count is something new in British history!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
New? The way things are going, you'll get something new all right - the end of the UK!!

Telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count is something new in British history!

I do recall the Daily Mail being part of high level, secret internal government discussions on how "the fething English" were going to pay back the Scottish for years of siding with the French against other Scottish people, the Welsh and a few Englishmen while wearing dresses, painting themselves blue and shouting "FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!".

Oh, wait, no. What I think I meant was that I recall the Daily Mail being the newspaper equivilent of the muck you find on your shoe when you go for a walk through a farm yard just after the cows had been through...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
New? The way things are going, you'll get something new all right - the end of the UK!!

Telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count is something new in British history!

I do recall the Daily Mail being part of high level, secret internal government discussions on how "the fething English" were going to pay back the Scottish for years of siding with the French against other Scottish people, the Welsh and a few Englishmen while wearing dresses, painting themselves blue and shouting "FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!".

Oh, wait, no. What I think I meant was that I recall the Daily Mail being the newspaper equivilent of the muck you find on your shoe when you go for a walk through a farm yard just after the cows had been through...

Teresa May, she of the government, is also saying it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Teresa May, she of the government, is also saying it.

From what I have read, she said some self evident problems to do with Scotland being independent/part of the EU, etc previously. Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Given that the only chance that Labour has of forming a government on the 8th of May will be with the SNP

Mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid. It's all just media hype.

At the moment, the percentages favour another Tory/Lib Dem coalition, followed by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, followed by a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition. There simply are not enough seats in Scotland to ally Labour and the SNP to form a new Government, short of Labour pulling off a miracle. I detailed this once before somewhere else, but I'll do it again here.

At the moment, there are about fifty nine seats in Scotland, with the SNP controlling about six, the Tories one, the Lib Dems eleven, and Labour forty

Just to emphasise how limited Scottish influence is on the formation of government, I'll say it again. Fifty nine seats. And that's out of a total of six hundred and fifty across the UK. At the moment, the Conservatives have 302 MP's, Labour 256, and the Lib Dems 56. For the SNP to gain seats at the next election, roughly two thirds of them must be pulled from Labour. This means that any SNP gains, are direct Labour losses. Assuming (generously) that the SNP grab another 24 seats, 8 of those will be Lib Dem, and 16 Labour. That leaves us with an SNP with 30 seats, and Labour with 240.

That combined 270 seats alone does not match up the current Conservative 302. If we assume that the Conservatives will shed around twenty seats, taking us to 290 vs 280 in favour of a Labour/SNP coalition, that simply isn't enough. You need 325 seats for a majority. Which means that in order for a Labour/SNP coalition to be viable, the Conservatives would actually need to lose fifty five seats to Labour total under that setup, as opposed to twenty (slightly less if the SNP makes less inroads into Labour than envisaged).

If there was a very strong Labour leader, and an unpopular Conservative Government, I could see there being a 55 seat swing. But with Ed Miliband? At a time when the economy is doing well? It isn't going to happen. It just isn't. Twenty seats is plausible, thirty seats conceivable, but beyond that? Improbable. In other words, even if the SNP and Labour get together, the odds mean that they would need the Lib Dems on board. And if Labour doesn't do too badly in Scotland, or the Lib Dems don't lose too many of their seats, it's highly plausible that they wouldn't need the SNP to begin with, as they'd have a majority between them, just about.

That's what this next election is all about. The odds are that the Tories will still have the largest party, meaning they get the first chance to form a government. If the figures are such that it would need to be a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP pact, Clegg will most likely jump straight back into bed with the Tories. A three way coalition would be a disaster, and he knows that. If Miliband pulls out enough seats to make a pure LIB Dem/Labour coalition, it then becomes an option. And that leaves Clegg as the kingmaker.

All of this guff about the SNP is just distraction and noise, and has little bearing on the policking going on in Westminster at the moment. This is an election where all Cameron needs to do is not screw up too badly. Miliband on the other hand, is desperate to grab as many Tory seats as possible, whilst losing as few Labour seats in Scotland as possible. Otherwise he has no chance of becoming powerful enough to make Clegg come to bargain with him. Nobody is fighting to win here, but rather to not lose. And that's been reflected by the lacklustre and distraction based political campaigning so far.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.

She believes that English voters would not accept Sturgeon's party having vital power over their lives.

Even the mail isn't stupid enough to make such a statement directly but the above quote, and many others like it, are really quite suggestive. The rightwing press has been full of 'Jockophobia' over recent weeks, why do you think that could be?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.

She believes that English voters would not accept Sturgeon's party having vital power over their lives.

Even the mail isn't stupid enough to make such a statement directly but the above quote, and many others like it, are really quite suggestive.

And that quote is a very long way from saying that Scottish votes are worthless. Personally I think a United Kingdom is stronger than 4 seperate nations but I would not prevent any area splitting off if it was a true representation of the desire of the people, and it was properly organised and viable. I, like many in the UK, am tired of a London-centric running of the UK... but that doesn't mean that I am going to throw all my toys out of the pram and put words into peoples mouths just so I have something to rage against.

 Ketara wrote:

Mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid. It's all just media hype.

The polls consistently back up my position though. Labour and the Tories are neck and neck and have been for the entirety of the campaign, they are both hovering around the 270-80 mark. Obviously this is just polling data but if they are even reasonably accurate the SNP will play a key role in voting through a Labour government. If Labour don't take up the offer of SNP support there will definitely be a Tory government.

 Ketara wrote:


At a time when the economy is doing well?

Election 2015: Debt and deficit
https://fullfact.org/economy/election_2015_debt_deficit-43413

The deficit measures the gap between money going into government, and money going out. If the government spends more than it receives, it is in deficit. Otherwise it is in surplus. You can find our full article on the deficit here.

In 2014-15 the deficit is estimated to have been about £90 billion, or £60 billion if you don’t include investment spending.

This is different from government debt, which measures how much the government owes in total. In February 2015 the debt was estimated to be about £1.5 trillion, or 80% of GDP. This figure excludes public sector banks.

Common claims:

“Five years ago, the budget deficit was more than 10% of GDP, the highest in our peacetime history”

The deficit in 2009-10 was 10.2% of GDP.
The Office for Budget Responsibility have data from 1948 onwards, and this is the highest the deficit has been in this period.
It was also the highest in cash terms at £154 billion, and the highest when adjusted for inflation.

“The deficit has been halved”

This is correct when looking at the deficit as a proportion of the UK’s economic output (GDP) each year: this has gone from 10% in 2009-10 to 5% in 2014-15.
The absolute value of the deficit has not halved, though. Over the same period it went from £154 billion to £90 billion.
Reducing the deficit is not the same as ‘paying down the debt’.

“George Osborne has borrowed more than he claimed he was going to back in 2010″

The government is borrowing more than it planned to: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that from 2010/11 to 2014/15 the government has borrowed approximately £100 billion more than it planned to at the start of this parliament.
However, this is not due to a failure to cut spending; it’s just that the economy hasn’t performed as well as was expected. http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/as2014/as2014_johnson.pdf#page=3 This means the government has raised less money in tax.

“The Coalition have failed to meet their deficit targets”

The Coalition is set to meet their supplementary target to have debt falling as a proportion of GDP. The balanced budget part of the mandate only requires that the government plan for a balanced budget three years in the future.
As the IFS point out, the government can technically meet this moving target without ever achieving budget balance

“The debt has doubled”

Debt has risen, but not doubled. It has risen from just under £1 trillion in April 2010 to about £1.5 trillion in February 2015. As a proportion of GDP, it’s risen from just over 60% to 80%

This is a UK election, the Scottish and Welsh votes are worth just a much as an English vote.