You appear to be comparing the leadership of French party that has been in office for a tad over two years and has now failed, to the leadership of a Scottish party that has been in office for a tad over seven years, four as a minority government and the last three with an overwhelming majority, and has served the country rather well in face of some of the most crippling of austerity measures. The main focus of the government in that time has been the people of the country, and they have served them well - far better than other parties have done/would have done. So your unfavourable comparison is not really warranted IMO.
Overwhelming majority eh? - with 45% of the vote - and they have 54% of seats - shows how brilliant PR really is. Spurf's new age democracy
Because the Union flag was designed to reflect the Union of England Scotland and Ireland and is based on their three flags - not relevant if Scotland is no longer in it - so the blue should go
I think you're wrong there Barry - it was originally known as the Jack Flag because of its position on the small mast on the bowsprit on ships and became Union Jack in the late 17th century. By the 18th century, the small masts had been replaced, and The Admiralty decreed that it was only to be used when ships were in harbour. In 1902 the Admiralty announced that either name - Jack or Flag - could be used officially - and parliamentary decree followed in 1908 to the effect that The Union Jack should be regarded as the national flag. As to using the Commonwealth Flag, most of the Aussies I know would rather see the Union Jack removed completely, although the issue of replacing it with something else has never really arisen as far as I know. The design of the flag, although a competition open to all, was never the subject of public vote and the inclusion of the Union Flag was somewhat controversial - especially as endorsement of the winning design never even came from the Australian parliament. It was sent to England for Edward VII to approve...
Would the title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland still exist ? Just another of those unanswered questions - Great Britain is a name referring to the whole island and would still exist as a geographical phrase, but could it be used as a political one ?
I was actually replying to a post from our friend BB, who was suggesting that it was possible that should there be a vote for independence there was no certainty that the SNP would remain in power, but some popular uprising from the people would take over. I was pointing out that should the vote go his way the SNP leadership would do everything within their power to stay in office. Today I see the FN calling for new elections here. Although they have no chance of that happening, unless things get far worse, it shows up how politicians will use every opportunity to try and gain an advantage. Here the problem has been that the austerity measures that were needed didn't happen when needed. Now that it has become obvious just how out of step the country has become the cuts are happening. This is where the real problem lies, not that cuts were needed, but they are too late in bringing them in. The Scottish government is also running a large deficit and one day will have to deal with it. It would hardly be the right time when they are trying to suggest that they have everything under control.
The Scottish one I presume? Not watching it myself - the last one was such a poorly run shambles that it put me off & I can't say that I trust the BBC to run one any better.... Too busy for TV anyway - got sent to a new school on day 3 of the new school year last week - nothing done in the classroom, no planning, no previous records available, no resources to speak of, a teacher's nightmare. Am dipping in and out of here, as well as football scores, as a break from burning the candle at both ends...
I tried to watch the debate, but found it hard going. There has been a better one here. My quote of the night goes like this. This referendum should be cancelled. With only a few weeks to go, we, the electorate still don't know what we are being asked to choose. No clear answers on currency, Europe, NATO, armed forces etc. This is the first election in history when nobody knows what they're choosing.
Strange that, SG have been very clear with their intentions on currency from the outset, and very clear about their intentions re armed forces. At least they are honest about the armed forces - there are rumours here regarding a leaked report from Westminster about their plan to close the RAF base in Leuchars, with the announcement being withheld until after the referendum. With regards to Europe, they can only state their wishes - which have the apparent backing from some within the EU hierarchy - but can't be responsible for the lack of a clear answer, which would only be forthcoming if Cameron asked the EU 'the question', which he won't. They have no control over, and very little say about, what Westminster will do with regards to Europe either - which is where the confusion arises. Re NATO, again their wishes are clear but it's not down to them to provide a clear answer, that's NATO's job. I can't understand anyone being confused really, it merely indicates a lack of research on their part, or an inability to form their own conclusions based upon what they read. Mind you, if they think this is an election and not a referendum, that says it all.
It was OK and run evenly by the BBC, I don't believe any criticism can be levelled there. Overall I think King Alex probably shaded the debate with Darling seeming hesitant and nervy. Both acted as the usual politicians and neither answered the questions posed, so not very enlightening - but for me that sums up the whole debate. But what really interests me is what will be the position of Darling and the Labour Party in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote - they are bound by the result, but what will their position be?
As I understand it, the official name of the country would be, "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland", though I suspect it will be called England in the same way that the UK is often called Great Britain, or Britain. What I want to know is whether people who live outside the UK, but have British passports, will have a choice as to which country (Scotland or UK) they will have citizenship.
Table 1.1 Voting Patterns in 2011 Scottish Parliament Election Constituency List Votes % Share Change Votes % Share Change in % share in % share since 2007 since 2007 SNP 902,915 45.4 +12.5 876,421 44.0 +13.0 Labour 630,437 31.7 -0.5 523,559 26.3 -2.9 Conservatives 276,652 13.9 -2.7 245,967 12.4 -1.5 Liberal Democrats 157,694 7.9 -8.2 103,472 5.2 -6.1 Greens - - (-0.1) 86,939 4.4 +0.3 Others 21,534 1.1 -0.9 154,568 7.8 -2.8 Turnout 1,989,232 50.4 -1.3 1,990,926 50.4 -2.0 Electorate = 3,950,626 Sources: Authorsâ calculations; Herbert et al. (2011); www.bbc.co.uk/news/; Sandford and Hardacre (2011 Those are the figures from the 2011 election in Scotland which are at odds with your figures Leonardo. My figures are from the Electorial Reform Society btw. This is the present situation with the SNP on 44% Labour on 26% Tories on 12% Liberals on 6% it is not my new Democracy as you put it, this is the devolved Scottish Parliament. Independence will bring change.
Re passports - times certainly have changed, for me at least. I would now be eligible for Scottish, Australian, EU - as well as to retain my UK one (I believe). I'd feel a bit like Jason Bourne going through Passport Control with that lot... The question is, could I afford them all?
How very typical of you to pick the figures that best suit you. I made clear my figures were the average of the four Scottish Parliament elections and the last five UK elections. As there are two strands to each Scottish Parliament, Consituency and List I took the combined average - there were few differences between those. You however choose the only election where the SNP have done well. Their share of UK votes - with a decent turnout of 66% on average have been 22,22,20,18 and 20 (that last in 2010 being only 3% more than the Tories ) In Scottish elections the SNP got 28,22,32 and 45. on an average turnout of just over 50%. Note SNP is a one trick pony - without Salmond in 2003 they got just 22% salmond knows this is a once in a lifetime chance - no other SNP leader will come close to matching him. Scotland in reality is not voting for Independence but for the rhetoric of one man. That has a dangerous precedent.
Think I have saved you some money BB. There is no such thing as an EU passport. The EU do not issue them.
Spurf is right on one thing which he stated much earlier in the thread. Democracy works better in small units. If you take party political membership as an indicator of active political participation then the UK, and also Germany have rates of party membership running at under 2% of their populations. Smaller countries like Belgium, Austria and Finland have rates of over 10% - Austria being the highest, no less than 17% of their population are members of political parties. My belief is that Scotland may follow this trend with a marked `politicization' of its population. The present party system would undergo many changes in an independent Scotland - you cannot expect parties born out of Great Britain (Scottish Labour, Tory etc.) to remain intact permanently. Also the SNP must change as the reason for its existence would have gone. The only party in Scotland which is truly European in its origins is the Green Party - and, judging by their success in Ireland, they would do well in an independent Scotland with PR. Other than that new 'Scottish' parties would develop which would change the political landscape. I have no doubt that Scotland would be more democratic as a result. So, in the long term, this is not about the SNP but rather about Scotland. I also think that they would succeed economically. We are focusing very much upon Scotland here without asking the question - where does this leave England ? Would we finally realise our mistakes only upon seeing the disappearance of the Union Jack ? Would we feel smaller and even less significant in the eyes of the rest of the World ? Would we see a redefining of the idea of 'Englishness' ? And - more directly, would our negotiating position within the EU be weakened ? We would lose seats in Brussels because of reduced population - but could there be other consequences ?
