|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 6 Apr 14:54
...how the Unionist opinion about the Holyrood electoral system has changed?
The system was essentially set up to prevent one party (namely the SNP) having full control. This was called "Good Democracy" back in the late 90s.
Now that Independence supporters decide to use a Unionist-devised system to their advantage it suddenly becomes "Gaming the system". Funny that.
Have to say that it is definitely a clever move by Salmond, like him or loathe him. Sway the balance of the narrative of the Governing institution and change will follow. I just wonder why it wasn`t thought of or done before? (Perhaps there
I`ve always been a bit concerned about how slow the Yes side are to arrive at certain obvious conclusions, namely:
(i) The need for an Independent currency (although the Scottish National Investment bank would seem to be an institution that may have been established to evolve into a Scottish Exchequer) with a currency peg in the early days before being freely floated later.
(ii) The need for post-independence referenda on Monarchy/Republic, Euro/Scottish Pound (A means of strengthening the hand RE EU negotiations) and EU/EEA.
I`ve always wondered why the SNP don`t go on the offensive against Labour and the Lib Dems along the lines of: "Our Social/Liberal Democratic values can be guaranteed with a written constitution in an Independent Scotland - how can you continue to back Tory Overlordship?"
Recently I`ve also wondered why it seems to never have been mentioned that an advisory referendum on Independence could be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election. This would put the UK Government and Electoral Commission in an extremely awkward position: how could they claim the (UK Govt. sanctioned) election was valid and a referendum on the same day invalid? It would also prevent a Unionist boycott because they would otherwise be faced with a massive pro-Independence Holyrood (although this might happen anyway).
As a side note, does anyone know if the Scottish Government has the power to ask for UN/International observers to oversee an election or referendum? Or is there anything to prevent say they Irish Government approaching the EU or UN on our behalf? Couldn`t hurt having internationally-recognised legitimacy!
Post Edited (Tue 06 Apr 14:58)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:28
Couple of clues to your questions
NS made two revealing comments last week
"I want to be the first minister for the next 5 years or more "
AND,
"I'd rather have small majority rather than a supermajority in the next parliament "
Furthermore the Greens on Sunday put a campaign brochure through my letterbox , with no mention on Independence whatsoever, attacked the SNP on home evictions and surprisingly made no mention on their success in the Scottish Parliament on the last three bills they supported one removing women's rights and another eroding freedom of speech.
Don't think the present Independence parties are up for the fight,
CONSTITUENCY VOTE SNP
LIST VOTE ALBA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:55
"As a side note, does anyone know if the Scottish Government has the power to ask for UN/International observers to oversee an election or referendum"
legal or illegal?
If the former - I`m sure that happened before, and there no questioning of the professionalism, impartiality, and honesty of our electoral staff and officials.
Apart some flakes implying that MI5 nicked boxes of Yes votes.
If the lattter - are you nuts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 6 Apr 17:17
Tenruh - I would consider lending my second vote to Alba, but to do so would enable Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and that`s out of the question. Kenny MacAskill is another who I wouldn`t be keen to back. Second vote will be going to the Greens.
Can you post a link to something RE the Greens leaflet you mention - would be keen to take a look!
Parboiled - The Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an advisory referendum. This is widely documented. Bringing in international observers would weaken any UK claims of illegitimacy or supposed "illegality".
On a side note, the manner in which you write is rather akin to a user that appears on here periodically with different usernames. I`d hazard a guess that you`re most likely in 50+ bracket and canny hack that the tide of public opinion is shifting against your world view. Moreover, having read your comments, can ye no just grow up and try to contribute something constructive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 6 Apr 17:48
Quote:
hurricane_jimmy, Tue 6 Apr 17:17
Tenruh - I would consider lending my second vote to Alba, but to do so would enable Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and that`s out of the question. Kenny MacAskill is another who I wouldn`t be keen to back. Second vote will be going to the Greens.
Can you post a link to something RE the Greens leaflet you mention - would be keen to take a look!
Parboiled - The Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an advisory referendum. This is widely documented. Bringing in international observers would weaken any UK claims of illegitimacy or supposed "illegality".
On a side note, the manner in which you write is rather akin to a user that appears on here periodically with different usernames. I`d hazard a guess that you`re most likely in 50+ bracket and canny hack that the tide of public opinion is shifting against your world view. Moreover, having read your comments, can ye no just grow up and try to contribute something constructive?
Don't understand your dislike for any particular candidate would put you off supporting their party if it achieves independence
Post Edited (Tue 06 Apr 21:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Tue 6 Apr 23:04
SNP ALBA for me as although I distrust Sturgeon I think she is a sail with the wind politician and Salmond being back might remind her what she started as.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 09:12
Salmond’s intentions are quite clear. Hoover up all the hotheads, stir it up, force her out. Cuckoo in her nest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 7 Apr 10:09
Quote:
Parboiled, Wed 07 Apr 09:12
Salmond’s intentions are quite clear. Hoover up all the hotheads, stir it up, force her out. Cuckoo in her nest.
You wish.
I am of the opinion that he has played a blinder, and you lot are falling for it, hook, line and the whole damn rod 🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 11:56
I am of the opinion he`s out to humiliate her by making her crawl for his support and demanding a place in her cabinet as his price for giving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 12:10
"I think the first job of that new Parliament, with its supermajority, should be to pass a resolution in week one, instructing the Scottish government to open negotiations with the UK Government on Scottish independence, that is the sort of urgency we want to inject into the independence debate."
Salmond in the Herald today. We`ll see whose pulling whose strings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 8 Apr 15:35
HJ
Regarding obvious conclusions, is the obvious conclusion not that the conclusion may not be obvious, or that people have reached a different conclusion?
To take your currency example, the SNP seems to have had at least 5 different policies on the matter, some of them simultaneously. All of them have drawbacks IMO. That may indicate the complexity of the issue – the very antithesis of a “no-brainer”.
I`ve argued before that having an advisory referendum on the same day might not be to the SNP’s advantage – it may galvanise soft Tory support. Besides, an advisory referendum would likely be ignored - Holyrood has little locus on constitutional matters. Shouldn’t we be campaigning on things like the economy, jobs, education, healthcare?
With regard to your initial point, surely the AMS system was devised to deliver a broadly proportionate result whilst maintaining notional constituency ties? Gaming the system is a known flaw, and normally the appropriate Electoral authorities would take action. (I’m not clear what difference a so called “super-majority” makes, particularly one gained on a minority of the votes). NS claimed she had a mandate for a second indy ref, but it never happened. To her credit, she seems reluctant to give the notion of a "supermajority" much credence but that probably has more to do with her new-found hatred of AS.
I’m also puzzled by your rush to label AMS as “Unionist” devised. AMS is a well known system with variants used in a number of settings over a number of years. The use of “Unionist” seems a little anachronistic and inappropriate to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
