Off Topic Political Debate

I doubt that anything has changed enough to call another vote. If I understand it correctly the leader has said her objective is to get people to agree to independence before she would even ask for a vote.

 

The results from last week's election suggest otherwise. Ruth Davidson made the mistake of pushing 'no second referendum' as her major platform, whilst the rest kept relatively quiet on the subject. She managed to attract only 20% of the vote, so it's fair to assume that the other 80% may be open to the idea.

 

Hopefully they will vote to leave so England can stop subsidising them.

 

I only just found out about this story this morning, but apparently a group of residents from Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man sent a petition to the Queen requesting that we be allowed to vote in the referendum, which she correctly refused. Don't these people realise that if the Queen had consented to the request, then we may as well relegate our own governments to county council status (in Jersey, we probably wouldn't notice the difference) and become parliamentary constituencies?

 

I don't quite understand this Barry. The Queen is not in a position to either grant or refuse this request being, herself, outside of politics. Also, the thousands of Britons living in the EU. are not part of British constituencies yet many of them can still vote in this referendum.

 

Well she interfered during the Scottish Referendum so she's not totally outside of politics. I have no idea whatsoever what the implications, if any, would be for those islands if she had been able to grant them the right - for instance, would it have affected their status as tax havens? If yes, then it's fairly obvious why she didn't interfere imo.

 

That's Nationalist logic....75% of people eligible to vote in this election did not vote for the Nationalists, I'd say there is NO case for another divisive debate, once in a generation means just that not repeat until get an instant when the planets align in your favor and use that to change the destiny forever! Tory result up here was best since the 60s and will be even stronger next time out.

 

And the SNP vote was the strongest ever - and not mention the first time any party topped a million votes in these elections, so presumably....

I really can't see where your optimism over 'stronger next time' comes from - Davidson's party will have to perform for that to happen but the portents are not good, she's already been snubbed by Labour & LibDems, and the Greens would never have a bar of her. Once her voters realise that she actually has no policies other than the slash and burn of the English Tories, I suspect her popularity will plummet again. Not for nothing did she deliberately drop the word 'Conservative' from election material - Ruth's Party my arse.

 

1974 - 24.7%
1979 - 31.4%
1983 - 28.7%
1987 - 24.0%

Davidson's 22% makes her even less popular than Thatcher...

 

What is noticeable is that the surge in membership of the SNP and the Labour party in England didn't produce any great increase in either parties popular support. Some people seemed to think that with all those additional members out on the doorsteps there would be a huge swing to both parties, but it didn't happen.

The SNP actually lost seats, and the Labour result was bad enough for people to call for their leaders head again. In my old stomping ground there were turnouts between 85% and 95 % of people registered to vote for the local elections. However in 75% of councils there was no election because there were not enough people prepared to give up a few hours of their time.

As much as we who on here like to express our views from widely different standpoints might wish for people to be more engaged with politics, we should accept that it is not something that is of huge interest to many. Today I caught a glimpse of Boris saying exactly the opposite of what he said only eighteen months ago about the UKs security. Is it any wonder that people do not believe what politicians say when they twist the facts to suit their own agenda. Last weeks figures in Scotland showed how badly the economy was suffering, in the same way that has happened to the French one here that has tried to follow similar lines, but it was somehow being spun into a success story.

I do not take on board the views of politician A or B, but look to what they achieve when in office. Any of them who try to distort the facts immediately become suspicious in my mind. Why are they doing it? I have known quite a few MPs, from different parties, some in the highest office, and their actions have spoken more about them than their words. Let us not become blinded by words, but take a broad view of what their actions will mean to those who need them to make the right decisions, which might not always be the obvious.

Rant over, need to pack my bags for that hotbed of political activity that is Corsica.

 

Good post, ofh. I particularly like the bit I've put in bold. They often forget we need them to get things right.

 

As all three jurisdictions are Crown Dependencies she had every right to grant or refuse the request as it was purely on the right to vote in the referendum, nothing else. There is also a difference between the whole populations of Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man having the right to vote as opposed to individuals who live in various countries.

 

I am registered to vote in this referendum in my old constituency as a foreign voter. The stipulation was that you had to have lived in one in the last 15 years. It seems a bit unfair that there should be this time limit if you are a national who really does have an interest in the result.

 

I can't speak for the labour Party in England, but I'd contend that you are wrong about the SNP. The 'surge' in membership since 2014 was somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 - that is very likely the reason the constituency vote for SNP this time around actually increased by over 150,000.

Not quite accurate - in the constituency vote the SNP did gain seats. It's due to the vagaries of the Scottish voting system that they made a net loss of six seats. An increase in seats via the constituency vote is rewarded with an adverse effect on the regional vote, where the vote for a party is diluted by the number of constituency seats that party gained. If you study the results of the regional vote, it's quite apparent that the problem for the SNP was the number of people who gave their second vote to the Greens - the SNP simply failed to convince those voters to give both votes to SNP.

The Tory gains were mostly in the regional vote, where success was virtually guaranteed - and were made at the expense of Labour. You can rest assured - the popularity of the SNP has increased.

 

You can rest assured the popularity of the SNP is in steep decline. The system up here was designed to get them some representation when they were a smaller force but spread, now it doesn't suit the power hungry Salmond he's calling for reform, basically your typical Nationalist....One day the people will wake up and see the SNP for what they are, a chip on the shoulder anti English single policy Nationalist party. If they had any degree of competence and demonstrated it by doing their jobs it might turn heads in the long term but thankfully no danger of that occurring as they continue to ignore governance and will spend time and our money on chasing their dream.

 

Corbyn supports this system.. enough said really....
"The free fall of the Venezuelan economy has produced an explosive situation with widespread repercussions for the Latin American region.

The Venezuelan bolivar has lost 98 percent of its value versus the US dollar since 2013, with inflation rising to roughly 600 percent by the end of 2015. Inflation is expected to double to above 1000 percent in 2016, with the IMF expecting growth to shrink by 10 percent this year after last year’s fall of 8 percent.

Poverty has skyrocketed since 2013, increasing from roughly 35 percent to roughly 80 percent today. Fifty-one percent of the population is in extreme poverty, up from less than 10 percent in 2012. Food riots, malnutrition, and disease are becoming more common due to an absence of basic consumer goods.

According to a recent study from the University of Simon Bolivar, only 19 percent of the population had enough to meet their basic needs. In 2015, only 52 percent of the population could afford to buy vegetables, 46 percent could buy sugar, and 32 percent could buy cheese and coffee. Nearly 20 percent of Venezuelans cannot even afford to buy rice.

The country’s infrastructure is collapsing. A shortage of electricity led the government to announce forced electricity blackouts beginning in April, and state-run industries are now closed five days a week in an effort to save energy. Last week, Venezuela’s largest beer producer, Empresas Polar, was forced to shut down production due to a lack of supplies.

The worsening economic situation has produced widespread opposition to the “Chavista” government of the Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which has been in power since Hugo Chavez’s first term as president began in 1999.

The PSUV government’s shortsighted and unplanned economic model was based on using high oil prices to enrich a layer of what is known as the “boliburguesia” [Bolivarian bourgeoisie] while buying political stability through moderate increases in social spending. When this nationalist program buckled under the impact of the international collapse in oil and commodity prices, the PSUV cut social spending and relied increasingly on state violence against strikes and protests.

Last week, for example, President Nicolas Maduro deployed the military to the streets of Maracaibo along the Northwest coast to quell riots in which dozens of shop windows were smashed and blockades set up. In a March poll, Maduro enjoyed the support of only 26.8 percent of the population—a figure that has likely fallen in the last two months."

 

Hi all,

just spreading my joy of leaving britain....

although i think everyone are pretty entrenched in their camps on this board

 

Cambridge dictionary definition of 'Steep decline' - A steep fall that goes very quickly from high to low

Scottish Election 2011 - Constituency results
SNP 902,915 votes - 53 seats
Labour 630,461 votes - 15 seats
Tories 276,652 votes - 3 seats

Scottish Election 2016 - Constituency results
SNP 1,059,897 votes - 59 seats
Labour 514,261 votes - 3 seats
Tories 501,844 votes - 7 seats

Steep decline? You're having a laugh aren't you?

The system up here was not designed to give the SNP some representation at all. It was implemented at the recommendation of the Arbuthnott Commission, set up by none other than Alistair Darling, in order to "make it difficult for one party to win an outright majority" - an entirely different kettle of fish.

I'm surprised you didn't know that - or maybe you did, but the truth doesn't fit your narrative?

 

BB at least we can agree on supporting the same football team, we're like a Horn and a Hatter when it comes to politics though!!! Nae healthy.....

 

Ah, but who is the Horn and who is the Hatter?