James McClean

What makes you think politicians in a Scottish parliament will be any less venal and self-serving?

 

Aye, but think of all the oil big man, we've got loads of it. Even though you can't even get a toothless street hooker for the price of a barrel of oil these days...allegedly

 

For a start, we don't wholly rely on a first-past-the-post electoral system which regularly returns the same politicians regardless of how ineffectual they are. Secondly, the Scottish electorate is a lot more switched on to politics and less likely to be swayed by Murdoch owned newspapers. Also, there's far less lobbying allowed at Holyrood than there is at Westminster.

The biggest problem with Westminster is that it's been getting away with it for so long that they are almost untouchable. Whether Holyrood would avoid the same fate is debatable.

 

What makes you say the Scottish voters are more switched on? Serious question(for once).

 

The referendum.

 

Booing and hissing should be mandatory at these things.

 

With regard to the point at hand, you make a good point about the first-past-the-post system and ineffectual MPs. However, my experience in the Netherlands leaves me with serious doubts about whether proportional representation is any fairer in terms of giving the electorate the government they voted for.

As regards Holyrood being any less corrupt, I seriously doubt it. Human nature hasn't changed since the Greeks invented democracy, and MSPs will be subject to the same temptations as all politicians ever since.

 

Because there was a higher turnout? Not sure that means they are more switched on. If so, by your reckoning, the No voters were more switched on than the Yes voters, as the 4 places that voted Yes had the lowest turnout

 

What he means is that the Scotch electorate are far more likely to swallow absolute pish that the Natzi propoganda machine churns out on twitter.

 

No. People started to ask questions of the politicians and the political systems in this country and at Westminster. They saw the power of the Establishment in full swing and saw it for the ugly monster that it is. They realised that WM was fully under the control of the rich and the powerful and the only way to break free from it was to vote Yes (apart from the easily scared: the old, the stupid, huns).

The referendum created political groups the length and breadth of the country and saw massive increases in party membership for all parties (apart from the Tories).

 

And the Tories are the only ones whose support isn't prolapsing like ST's farter at one of his acorn picking parties.

 

Oh well, if they started asking questions, that's a different story! At the end of the day people are idiots, they only vote because their mates are voting for that particular party etc. there should be an IQ test for people pass before they can vote. To say the Scottish voters are more switched on is utter bollocks

 

ST, tell me why the lowest turnouts were the places that the Yes vote won. Yet another serious question

 

**** off, dumbo. It took you three years to work out how to post a picture on here so you've got no right to call anyone stupid. If you were still allowed in Britain you'd probably vote UKIP.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arty-hit-huge-fall-members-flop-Election.html

 

And how "low" were these turnouts Monaco?

 

The lowest out of the whole of Scotland, everything is comparable

 

The boring new twat has just pulled out his studded fisting glove and destroyed ST's aching dungpipe!!

 

Aye, and everything's relevant. I would suggest that a Yes vote offered hope to those who've been abandoned by successive Tory and Labour governments at Westminster so the Yes vote was highest in "poorer" areas who, historically, have a lower voter turn out than well off areas.

 

I thought somebody should stick up for you, I could see you were on the ropes with your gum shield out

 

Their only hope was that the taigs and tramps had was their benefits wouldn't get cut.