Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Scottish Independence
What unbelievable scaremongering by that numpty Ed Milliband today when he suggested that if Scotland were independent a Scottish woman who becomes ill in Liverpool would not be treated because she was a foreigner. Would a French woman be treated, or a German woman or an English woman becoming ill in Glasgow? This is absolutely the deepest of the depths to which political spin can plumb. Which right thinking citizen could possibly be swayed by such arrant nonsense?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@ NJ Dubious? Hardly. Speculative, certainly. Loaded, certainly. Milliband has done nothing more than any other politician who favours keeping the Union has done.
And politics is about more than just numbers. Read this excerpt from a Constitution Society article; I am thinking Coalitions are likely to be much more common in our electoral future, personally, regardless of what happens with Scottish independence. I would hope the Scots vote to stay within the Union myself, but we shall have to see what they decide come referendum day.
"On the other hand, however, if the Scots voted ‘yes’, and at least one recent opinion poll suggests support for independence is growing,[3] it is felt in some circles that the Conservatives would be the principal benefiters among the UK parties because Labour is far more reliant on Scottish votes than the Tories are. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the Conservatives would possess an in-built majority in England which Labour would struggle to overturn.
How convincing is such an argument? It is certainly true that the Conservative electoral strength is almost entirely concentrated in England. Of the 59 Scottish MPs who currently sit in Westminster, 41 of these are Labour seats, while only 1 is Conservative. In fact, one has to go back as far as 1955 to find an election in which the Tories won more seats in Scotland than Labour did.[4] Clearly, then, Labour would be at a much greater disadvantage than the Tories as a result of the loss of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament.
Nevertheless Labour is not as reliant on Scottish votes to gain an overall majority in the UK Parliament as these figures might suggest. Of the six Labour governments since 1945 only twice – in 1964 and February 1974 – was the party reliant on Scottish votes to help keep the Conservatives from office.[5]
The last three Labour governments in particular have all enjoyed comfortable overall majorities, which the loss of Scottish seats would not have overturned. In 1997 Labour’s majority was 178, of which only 56 were Scottish seats; in 2001 their majority was 166, of which 55 seats were Scottish; and in 2005 Labour’s majority was 65, of which 40 were Scottish seats.[6]
Nor does Labour’s recent electoral record in England suggest that the Tories would possess an innate advantage there. In 1997, for example, Labour obtained a majority in England alone of 127; in 2001 they had a majority there of 117; and in 2005 they secured a majority of 43.[7] True, in the 2010 General Election the Conservatives won 297 seats in England, compared to 191 obtained by Labour. [8] But this was off the back of thirteen years of Labour government, and the worst recession in living memory."
"http://www.consoc.org.uk/2012/02/would-the-conservatives-benefit-from-scottish-independence-michael-everett-constitution-society-researcher/
And politics is about more than just numbers. Read this excerpt from a Constitution Society article; I am thinking Coalitions are likely to be much more common in our electoral future, personally, regardless of what happens with Scottish independence. I would hope the Scots vote to stay within the Union myself, but we shall have to see what they decide come referendum day.
"On the other hand, however, if the Scots voted ‘yes’, and at least one recent opinion poll suggests support for independence is growing,[3] it is felt in some circles that the Conservatives would be the principal benefiters among the UK parties because Labour is far more reliant on Scottish votes than the Tories are. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the Conservatives would possess an in-built majority in England which Labour would struggle to overturn.
How convincing is such an argument? It is certainly true that the Conservative electoral strength is almost entirely concentrated in England. Of the 59 Scottish MPs who currently sit in Westminster, 41 of these are Labour seats, while only 1 is Conservative. In fact, one has to go back as far as 1955 to find an election in which the Tories won more seats in Scotland than Labour did.[4] Clearly, then, Labour would be at a much greater disadvantage than the Tories as a result of the loss of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament.
Nevertheless Labour is not as reliant on Scottish votes to gain an overall majority in the UK Parliament as these figures might suggest. Of the six Labour governments since 1945 only twice – in 1964 and February 1974 – was the party reliant on Scottish votes to help keep the Conservatives from office.[5]
The last three Labour governments in particular have all enjoyed comfortable overall majorities, which the loss of Scottish seats would not have overturned. In 1997 Labour’s majority was 178, of which only 56 were Scottish seats; in 2001 their majority was 166, of which 55 seats were Scottish; and in 2005 Labour’s majority was 65, of which 40 were Scottish seats.[6]
Nor does Labour’s recent electoral record in England suggest that the Tories would possess an innate advantage there. In 1997, for example, Labour obtained a majority in England alone of 127; in 2001 they had a majority there of 117; and in 2005 they secured a majority of 43.[7] True, in the 2010 General Election the Conservatives won 297 seats in England, compared to 191 obtained by Labour. [8] But this was off the back of thirteen years of Labour government, and the worst recession in living memory."
"http://www.consoc.org.uk/2012/02/would-the-conservatives-benefit-from-scottish-independence-michael-everett-constitution-society-researcher/
Why would you want to remain in a union where for the most part the Westminster government does not reflect the wishes of the electorate?
It is a matter of wonder to me that some people do not believe that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland by the people of Scotland but that mother Westminster knows best.
We are not capable of running our own affairs.
Please wake up and smell the coffee ...Westminster does not give a Sugar about Scotland.
2014 referendum is your chance to show that you are not all mouth and no trousers.
VOTE YES!!!!!
It is a matter of wonder to me that some people do not believe that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland by the people of Scotland but that mother Westminster knows best.
We are not capable of running our own affairs.
Please wake up and smell the coffee ...Westminster does not give a Sugar about Scotland.
2014 referendum is your chance to show that you are not all mouth and no trousers.
VOTE YES!!!!!
hello where have you been lately, i was wondering when you would pop up, i have had a change of name from em10, and have been keeping a watchful eye about any questions on Scottish Independence. I don't think it would be a good thing for anyone, as to Ed M, he is a wally of the first order, i wouldn't trust him as far as i could throw him, and that wouldn't be far.
http://
does seem rather a strange thing to say, but i find him strange whatever he does, says.
does seem rather a strange thing to say, but i find him strange whatever he does, says.
much is made by the separatist faction of "scotland's oil", and the unionists counter that it's nothing of the sort, whilst the jusy is still out on whether the shetland voice counts, or not.
fact is, north sea oil (of which 54% is norwegian) peaked in 1999, and production will have fallen to less than one third of that by 2020. so just as scottish independance would come to fruition the oil will run out, and the custodians at that time will have to decommission the industry, which will include a massive environmental operation, that will all need funding.
where's the money for that gong to come from?
fact is, north sea oil (of which 54% is norwegian) peaked in 1999, and production will have fallen to less than one third of that by 2020. so just as scottish independance would come to fruition the oil will run out, and the custodians at that time will have to decommission the industry, which will include a massive environmental operation, that will all need funding.
where's the money for that gong to come from?
The voters in the 2014 referendum will be all those people resident in Scotland and of voting age. This will include a number of English people, either students such as myself, or just those who live and work in Scotland temporarily. So the vote will not just be about Scottish opinions, but about Scottish resident opinions which isn't the same thing at all.
I'll be voting no.
I'll be voting no.
"and whilst we appreciate the thoughts and opinions of non-Scots, we are just getting fed up with them, so, until then,"
a bit like a lot of us down here getting fed up with all the opinions of the scots in parliament telling us how to do things.
take em all back and they can tell the Scots how to run their affairs and we will run our own affairs without their interference.
a bit like a lot of us down here getting fed up with all the opinions of the scots in parliament telling us how to do things.
take em all back and they can tell the Scots how to run their affairs and we will run our own affairs without their interference.
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |