General Election 2015

[larus]

So what % of the UK population will be voting SNP? Between 2% and 3%? Yet they could decide who forms the next government in return for concessions? It's wrong.

I think you're being very harsh there . Let's assume that SNP get 50% of the vote in Scotland, that's a whopping 4.2%.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Land mass is a third though. It's a significant chunk of the UK which ever way I look at it.

If you are counting land mass over population then you are suggesting we go back to the days of the landed gentry and the nobility ruling, based on their estates. I'm surprised.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So what % of the UK population will be voting SNP? Between 2% and 3%? Yet they could decide who forms the next government in return for concessions? It's wrong.

If the UK doesn't want it, it needs to vote in a majority government then.

 

[Hampster Gull]

The SNP do not deserve a say, nor the right to influence English issues. Scotland, NI and Wales have their own parliaments where they can decide their OWN issues.
Your Man U comment is strange and fairly lame in relation to a very important issue that could affect the people that live in England.

And i think we get to the heart of the issue here. The snp are getting what they want via this route too, ie the other parts of the country demanding the benefits and rights that the scots have. at some point it falls apart. Clearly a half glasss full point but i amstating to think the the genie is out of the bottle on this now and the union has had its time

 

[Bry Nylon]

I think you're being very harsh there . Let's assume that SNP get 50% of the vote in Scotland, that's a whopping 4.2%.

Well, a proportion of the population will be below the age of 18 plus turnout will be what, 50-70%? That's how I got to 2-3% of the UK population voting SNP.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you are counting land mass over population then you are suggesting we go back to the days of the landed gentry and the nobility ruling, based on their estates. I'm surprised.

Of course I'm not. What I'm saying is they have a lot of land and resources and they should have a say in wider national issues because of this.

 

[larus]

Land mass is a third though. It's a significant chunk of the UK which ever way I look at it. They have recently spent more time than not being governed by a parliament 400 miles away, run by a party they don't vote for, so I think it's about time they had a stronger say in UK Politics.

Sometime I wonder about your arguments, but this is one of the most stupid things I've read in a long time. IT's down to PEOPLE, not LAND. God, can you imagine your outrage if this was a Tory valuing the importance of land over people.

 

[larus]

Well, a proportion of the population will be below the age of 18 plus turnout will be what, 50-70%? That's how I got to 2-3% of the UK population voting SNP.

I was only joking. It's a small percentage and could get more influence than it warrants.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sometime I wonder about your arguments, but this is one of the most stupid things I've read in a long time. IT's down to PEOPLE, not LAND. God, can you imagine your outrage if this was a Tory valuing the importance of land over people.

Read my post above.

 

[Soulman]

So what % of the UK population will be voting SNP? Between 2% and 3%? Yet they could decide who forms the next government in return for concessions? It's wrong.

Exactly, not just concessions, but on English issues. I believe a few years back a vote involving English tuition fees/concessions was defeated by about 5 votes, at the time there was about 108 SNP/Plaid/ DUP/Others combined.....that out of roughly 660 MP's, with SNP getting many many more seats, how many more English only issues will we get knocked back on.....especially as the Scots who could only vote on their own issues, managed to get the reverse of the decision that was voted against in England.
Just looking at the pecking order of money per person handed out.....England gets the least now, god knows in the future if the tail starts really wagging the dog.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sometime I wonder about your arguments, but this is one of the most stupid things I've read in a long time. IT's down to PEOPLE, not LAND. God, can you imagine your outrage if this was a Tory valuing the importance of land over people.

And FPTP is clearly not just about people as they're not of equal size and voters

 

[larus]

Of course I'm not. What I'm saying is they have a lot of land and resources and they should have a say in wider national issues because of this.

They've already got a lot of say over domestic affairs. Very selective arguments here. There's the little thing called the Scottish Parliament which has a lot of powers and is due to get more.

I really wish they'd voted for independence now. Imagine the wailing with the crash in oil prices. They'd be totally screwed and their socialist model f*cked.

 

[nicko31]

The issue I have with the potential for the SNP to be in this position of ultimate influence is that the vast majority of the electorate do not have the opportunity to either vote for them, or come to that tactically against them. We might as well let the Lords choose the government if this is how it is going to be decided.

To me it just doesn't feel right.

You bet it doesn't feel right

By letting them have their own parliament back in 1997 was a massive error, as was the barnett formula. There are more people in the West Midlands for gods sake, you don't get Brummies demanding indepedance.

In the past year first we had to indure the referendum and now the prospect of Ms Sturgeon throwing her weight around a Westminster demanding this and that whilst not even being an MP

We're in a mess

 

[Soulman]

Of course I'm not. What I'm saying is they have a lot of land and resources and they should have a say in wider national issues because of this.

They have a say on their OWN issues, which is why they have their own Parliament......like Wales and NI.......unfortunately England is i believe the only country in the civilised world that does NOT have it's own Parliament.

 

[Soulman]

You bet it doesn't feel right

By letting them have their own parliament back in 1997 was a massive error, as was the barnett formula. There are more people in the West Midlands for gods sake, you don't get Brummies demanding indepedance.

In the past year first we had to indure the referendum and now the prospect of Ms Sturgeon throwing her weight around a Westminster demanding this and that whilst not even being an MP

We're in a mess

Yep, we certainly are, and if you think that Labour left us in a mess in 2010, then if the Lab/SNP get in i think it will be worse still.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They've already got a lot of say over domestic affairs. Very selective arguments here. There's the little thing called the Scottish Parliament which has a lot of powers and is due to get more.

I really wish they'd voted for independence now. Imagine the wailing with the crash in oil prices. They'd be totally screwed and their socialist model f*cked.

I know they have a say over domestic affairs, hence I wrote national.

 

[larus]

And FPTP is clearly not just about people is it?

I'd happily accept some form of PR.

Another point, they have too many MP's in relation to their population too, They have 9.08% of the MP's based on 8.4% of the population. Something else in favour of the left.

Being that you support fairness, then I'm sure that you would agree that the boundaries should be sorted balanced.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They have a say on their OWN issues, which is why they have their own Parliament......like Wales and NI.......unfortunately England is i believe the only country in the civilised world that does NOT have it's own Parliament.

I wrote NATIONAL! I know about their domestic parliament thank you.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'd happily accept some form of PR.

Another point, they have too many MP's in relation to their population too, They have 9.08% of the MP's based on 8.4% of the population. Something else in favour of the left.

Being that you support fairness, then I'm sure that you would agree that the boundaries should be sorted balanced.

I'd personally scrap FPTP and go PR.

 

[larus]

I know they have a say over domestic affairs, hence I wrote national.

[h=3]Devolved powers[/h]The affairs over which the Scottish Parliament has control are called devolved powers, and they include:

• health
• education and training
• local government
• law, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
• social work
• housing
• tourism and economic development
• some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy, and ports and harbours
• planning and the environment
• agriculture, forestry and fishing
• sport and the arts
• miscellaneous matters, such as compiling statistics and keeping public records

[h=3]Reserved powers[/h]The UK Parliament retains control over a whole range of national affairs. These are called reserved powers, and they include:

• constitutional matters
• UK defence and national security
• UK foreign policy
• immigration and nationality
• UK economic and monetary policy (other than Scotland's tax-varying power)
• energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear power
• employment legislation
• social security (the DWP - Department for Work and Pensions)
• some aspects of transport, including railways, safety and regulation
• regulation of certain professions such as medicine and dentistry
• others, such as data protection, broadcasting, gambling and the National Lottery

As fas as I can see, Scotland ain't doing too bad in what it has voting tights over. And more to come... Doesn't seem a lot for them to complain about in terms of Westminster interference and needing more say at a national level.