Honestly, only a constitutional change like that would be a legitimate excuse to have another referendum imo. That or getting rid of the NHS or the BBC or something.
The SNP plan worked brilliantly and I'm betting Nicola Sturgeon is just as happy to see Cameron in power as she would have been to see Milliband knocking on her door with a sheepish expression and a plea for a confidence and supply arrangement. Now they have an even better chance of winning the next referendum on Independence.
They would have won either way. The Tories and the SNP are the unequivocal winners in this election.
Why would they get another referendum? The Tories don't want to lose Scotland, and the independence movement gives them an Other to campaign against. Even presuming that sentiment would swing enough towards independence after an idealism crushing pyrrhic victory, the SNP has zero leverage to force that vote because they are not now and never be part of a government with the Tories.
The right to hold another referendum is held by the people of SCotland.
Says who?
The Smith Commission and the the precedent set by the will of the Scottish people resulting in a referendum.
If the Smith Commission had wanted the right to hold another referendum to be devolved to Scotland it would have explicitly said so. It's very much a stretch to run from a bit of feel-good fluff in the introduction to claiming that they've endorsed such a massive change implicitly, especially when that isn't even the most natural reading of said fluff, IMHO.
The precedent set by the prior referendum would seem to be that Westminster is fairly involved in the whole process.
The entire British Constitution is feel good fluff. The report is incredibly explicit that the power is in the hands of the people of Scotland.
Um, no. Sorry but there's no reading of the Smith commission that gives Holyrood the power to hold new referendums. Constitutional change is explicitly a Westminster power, and Westminster has to agree to one before it is legal .That doesn't stop the SNP holding one and declaring independence anyway, or holding one as a symbol, but there's absolutley no way legally for the SNP to just hold a referendum without the agreement of Westminster.
The line in the smith commission reads "It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. "
That's not at all delegating the power of referendums to Scotland - that's completely separate to the idea that independence is the choice of the Scottish people, which I think everyone would agree on as a principle.
So independence is completely the choice of the people of Scotland except if Westminster says no?
"There's nothing preventing you having a biscuit should you so chose"
Reach for biscuit, receive smack over the back of the hand.
"You aren't allowed to have a biscuit"
It sounds similar to the situation in Catalunya, the government there can't hold official referendums either but you can still budget for a guiding referendum, with no legal power behind it but still a very strong message to the national government.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
"There's nothing preventing you having a biscuit should you so chose"
Reach for biscuit, receive smack over the back of the hand.
"You aren't allowed to have a biscuit"
Is this commentary on Scottish obesity?
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
"There's nothing preventing you having a biscuit should you so chose"
Reach for biscuit, receive smack over the back of the hand.
"You aren't allowed to have a biscuit"
"There's nothing preventing you having a biscuit should you so chose"
Reach for biscuit, receive smack over the back of the hand.
"You aren't allowed to have a biscuit"
On the one hand, the Scottish people have the right to decide their future. On the other, I can't help but feel that having a referendum every couple of years until the result is the one you ( and/or the SNP) want is just taking the piss.
If I were the SNP I would spend about a year saying "give us all you promised last election" then a few months of "campaign promissions or a new referendum" and then start a real push.
Has there been any work done on the practical effects of an EU exit?
I assume there must have been, but I haven't read much about it.
Of the top of my head international trade in the buying and selling sense would likely be fine in the short term (since standards and practice wouldn't diverge immediately), but anything that involves the provision of services internationally seems like it would get really complex, really fast. Then there are the UK citizens already working in the EU who would presumably lose their entitlement to work and access to social services...
The main question is what kind of EU trade deals does the UK negotiate when they leave. The current president of the EU hates Cameron on both principled and personal grounds and that will only worsen through any coming negotation.
Cameron and the EU is a disaster story in general. I don't think the tories have any (sane) allies in Europe, do they?
The now inevitable EU referendum makes thing even more awkward. I believe the idea is a referendum on in the EU with 'reforms', or out. Problem is that once the vote to stay in is passed, what negotiating power does the UK have? The rest of europe can point and say "well, you can't leave now" and there will be nobody to back up the UK on any changes.
Cameron and the EU is a disaster story in general. I don't think the tories have any (sane) allies in Europe, do they?
The now inevitable EU referendum makes thing even more awkward. I believe the idea is a referendum on in the EU with 'reforms', or out. Problem is that once the vote to stay in is passed, what negotiating power does the UK have? The rest of europe can point and say "well, you can't leave now" and there will be nobody to back up the UK on any changes.
I thought it was a straight in/out referendum, no strings attached.
I think the Norway situation probably implies that the EU would be unlikely to budge on agreements, either.
Norway needs access to EU markets more than the EU particularly needs Norway, so the EU position is, so far as I understand it, that Norway needs to meet all obligations that would normally be imposed on a member state, but has effectively no leverage to negotiate those obligations or influence over what they entail. So much of the supposed EU red tape that brexit proponents suggest the UK could dump would have to continue to exist as the price of access to EU markets.
In theory the UK could use access to the London financial markets as leverage but given most EU states are itching to break London's influence in that sphere I don't see that working out.
Yeah, my impression would be they'd use the looming referendum as pressure for reforms.
And if they did make any concessions, and the vote was 'no', Cameron would claim victory.
Edit: Really, anything short of them making absolutely zero concessions, or anything that could be perceived as such, and the vote being a solid 'no', he can claim victory.
I suspect a lot Brexit people - I like that phrase, japan - overestimate the UK's influence as a single entity. The UK certainly has some, like cultural ties through the Commonwealth and London being a big economic hub. But why should the likes of Russia listen to the UK on its own? Abandoning the ability to influence the EU is reducing the UK ability to act on the world stage.
I also think pro-EU people really need to assess and acknowledge the problems the EU has, for there definitely are some issues beyond human rights meaning prisoners can watch porn or something.
Cameron and the EU is a disaster story in general. I don't think the tories have any (sane) allies in Europe, do they?
The now inevitable EU referendum makes thing even more awkward. I believe the idea is a referendum on in the EU with 'reforms', or out. Problem is that once the vote to stay in is passed, what negotiating power does the UK have? The rest of europe can point and say "well, you can't leave now" and there will be nobody to back up the UK on any changes.
The idea is for the referendum to take place after Cameron fails to reform the EU.
I do wonder if deep down they were hoping to avoid a majority so they didn't have to follow through on that, as only the proper crazy fringe want to leave the EU. So Cameron is going to end up campaigning against his own referendum, and look like an idiot.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Think a bit more about it, Cameron strikes me as an exceptionally poor statesman. Most of his interactions with the EU have been combative and stand-offish, leaving the UK more and more isolated. In one case, it was summed up as "Cameron has played a poor hand badly".
Even further afield, I can't really remember any significant interaction between Cameron and any other world leader (feel free to correct me here, working from memory only). He was heavily involved in Libya and Syria to an extent, but that was more of an embarrassment than anything else. He was a non-entity in the Ukraine crisis. I just don't see him building any international relations at all really.
Not directly, but I don't think the EU sanctions would have been as strong as they are - and you can debate that in the Post-Soviet thread - if only Germany was the primary actor.
Yeah, I've never really seen Cameron as statesmanlike.
I strongly that people internationally hate having to deal with him, given his propensity to thrash around without taking a position based on how whatever he last said played in the right wing press. He's probably unable to come to agreements because most of the time it is impossible to pin down what it is he actually wants. That, coupled with the UK tendency to return wingnuts as MEPs likely has a lot to do with the EU's evident lack of patience with Britain.
Has there been any work done on the practical effects of an EU exit?
I assume there must have been, but I haven't read much about it.
Of the top of my head international trade in the buying and selling sense would likely be fine in the short term (since standards and practice wouldn't diverge immediately), but anything that involves the provision of services internationally seems like it would get really complex, really fast. Then there are the UK citizens already working in the EU who would presumably lose their entitlement to work and access to social services...
It would be a massive clusterfuck, because this country cant survive a week without trading with the EU. Our economy and legal system has been integrated into the EU for 40 years, and disentangling those will be a huge project. And if we want to keep on trading with the EU, then the stuff we sell has to be compliant with EU regulations anyway, and the stuff we buy from them will keep on being complaint as well.
All because a bunch of boomers are salty that the EU won't let them be quite as openly shitty to queers and brown people as they like and they think they can make it be 1960 again.
Westminster continues to dictate the terms of what constitutes an entity that speaks for "the people of Scotland"; the obvious problem of trying to hold a disputed referendum is less illegality and more representation.
There's a petition for electoral reform gaining a decent amount of steam. I wonder how easy it will be for the Tories to blow off. I suspect we're going to be hearing a lot about how this was "settled for a generation" five years ago.
The AV vote was about AV, whereas the push at the moment is much more focussed on actual PR
It seems pretty uncontroversial to say that the pro-reform vote was split in the AV referendum between those that voted in favour because it was an improvement on FPTP and those that voted against because it wasn't PR
The thing with PR is someone who isn't a stain on humanity will have to first win in a FPTP system, because these people whom believe that they are doing right by the country don't believe that the country should have a fair say in it. Say what you want about UKIP, a substantial number of people voted for them, and in a democratic system, those voices have a right to be heard, yet they get one seat and the SNP got 58-59.
None of these people are going to deliberately hobble themselves unless they would benefit from PR and only the parties who can't win under FPTP benefit from PR.
The thing with PR is someone who isn't a stain on humanity will have to first win in a FPTP system, because these people whom believe that they are doing right by the country don't believe that the country should have a fair say in it. Say what you want about UKIP, a substantial number of people voted for them, and in a democratic system, those voices have a right to be heard, yet they get one seat and the SNP got 58-59.
None of these people are going to deliberately hobble themselves unless they would benefit from PR and only the parties who can't win under FPTP benefit from PR.
Such is the age old problem of electoral reform.
But if the public can be made to make a large enough stink about it then who knows? If it looks like that will happen the Tories will mobilise the media machine again to shoot it down. I mean lets remember, they convinced people to vote against AV on the grounds the public were too stupid to understand it.
The thing with PR is someone who isn't a stain on humanity will have to first win in a FPTP system, because these people whom believe that they are doing right by the country don't believe that the country should have a fair say in it. Say what you want about UKIP, a substantial number of people voted for them, and in a democratic system, those voices have a right to be heard, yet they get one seat and the SNP got 58-59.
None of these people are going to deliberately hobble themselves unless they would benefit from PR and only the parties who can't win under FPTP benefit from PR.
Such is the age old problem of electoral reform.
But if the public can be made to make a large enough stink about it then who knows? If it looks like that will happen the Tories will mobilise the media machine again to shoot it down. I mean lets remember, they convinced people to vote against AV on the grounds the public were too stupid to understand it.
One of my motivations to vote yes was to spite the media campaign against it.
Say what you want about UKIP, a substantial number of people voted for them, and in a democratic system, those voices have a right to be heard, yet they get one seat and the SNP got 58-59.
This isn't a valid comparison though. The SNP only stood in the Scottish constituencies where they gained overwhelming support, while UKIP stood nearly everywhere and only gained mild support in most locations. It's why you can't exactly match the popular vote - it would turn into a case of "who's rich enough to mount a campaign across more of the country than the opposition?".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't know that the disparity between UKIP and SNP support is a good one.
I'm unconvinced a differet result would e any more inherently democratic or representative of the will of the British people.
I don't know that the disparity between UKIP and SNP support is a good one.
I'm unconvinced a differet result would e any more inherently democratic or representative of the will of the British people.
The issue there is that pure PR doesn't have that geographic link between votes and representation - under the present system you vote for an MP, who is your MP in quite a direct way.
Mixed Member PR is probably the most effective system at providing both proportionality and local representation, but I think to work in the UK you'd need some kind of federal settlement to make it tenable, given the presence of strictly local interest candidates and parties.
We should all watch CGP Grey's videos on electoral systems anyway.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It sort of reminds me ofthe argument here in the states about how districts should be mathematically done into different squares and while yes that does seem fair it ignores a lot of issues re: human beings.
Mixed member might be better, but what that infographic implies is handing over seats to people who can't compete for some nebulous idea of fairness.
Ulon closer inspection I don't think it quite lines up.
I do wonder whether Labour and the Conservatives might see some appeal in PR, in that they'd receive more seats during elections which they'd lose under FPTP. Probably not a thought that will ever get aired in public because God forbid you admit that you might not win a future election.
Posts
:snap:
Steam | XBL
So independence is completely the choice of the people of Scotland except if Westminster says no?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Reach for biscuit, receive smack over the back of the hand.
"You aren't allowed to have a biscuit"
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Is this commentary on Scottish obesity?
I would have chosen a deep fried mars bar.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
On the one hand, the Scottish people have the right to decide their future. On the other, I can't help but feel that having a referendum every couple of years until the result is the one you ( and/or the SNP) want is just taking the piss.
Thoughts of a Part-Time Hobbyist - A Wargaming and RPG Blog
But actually succeeding during the mess that would occur during a EU exit would be......severely unlikely.
Stuff like that makes it hard for me to take the Tories in good faith.
I assume there must have been, but I haven't read much about it.
Of the top of my head international trade in the buying and selling sense would likely be fine in the short term (since standards and practice wouldn't diverge immediately), but anything that involves the provision of services internationally seems like it would get really complex, really fast. Then there are the UK citizens already working in the EU who would presumably lose their entitlement to work and access to social services...
The now inevitable EU referendum makes thing even more awkward. I believe the idea is a referendum on in the EU with 'reforms', or out. Problem is that once the vote to stay in is passed, what negotiating power does the UK have? The rest of europe can point and say "well, you can't leave now" and there will be nobody to back up the UK on any changes.
I thought it was a straight in/out referendum, no strings attached.
Norway needs access to EU markets more than the EU particularly needs Norway, so the EU position is, so far as I understand it, that Norway needs to meet all obligations that would normally be imposed on a member state, but has effectively no leverage to negotiate those obligations or influence over what they entail. So much of the supposed EU red tape that brexit proponents suggest the UK could dump would have to continue to exist as the price of access to EU markets.
In theory the UK could use access to the London financial markets as leverage but given most EU states are itching to break London's influence in that sphere I don't see that working out.
And if they did make any concessions, and the vote was 'no', Cameron would claim victory.
Edit: Really, anything short of them making absolutely zero concessions, or anything that could be perceived as such, and the vote being a solid 'no', he can claim victory.
I also think pro-EU people really need to assess and acknowledge the problems the EU has, for there definitely are some issues beyond human rights meaning prisoners can watch porn or something.
The idea is for the referendum to take place after Cameron fails to reform the EU.
I do wonder if deep down they were hoping to avoid a majority so they didn't have to follow through on that, as only the proper crazy fringe want to leave the EU. So Cameron is going to end up campaigning against his own referendum, and look like an idiot.
Even further afield, I can't really remember any significant interaction between Cameron and any other world leader (feel free to correct me here, working from memory only). He was heavily involved in Libya and Syria to an extent, but that was more of an embarrassment than anything else. He was a non-entity in the Ukraine crisis. I just don't see him building any international relations at all really.
Not directly, but I don't think the EU sanctions would have been as strong as they are - and you can debate that in the Post-Soviet thread - if only Germany was the primary actor.
I strongly that people internationally hate having to deal with him, given his propensity to thrash around without taking a position based on how whatever he last said played in the right wing press. He's probably unable to come to agreements because most of the time it is impossible to pin down what it is he actually wants. That, coupled with the UK tendency to return wingnuts as MEPs likely has a lot to do with the EU's evident lack of patience with Britain.
The SNP have a land reform bill in the works that suggests that maybe just maybe perpetuating Feudal transfer of estates is a bad idea.
I wouldn't be suprised if Owen Patterson, like Paul Dacre who has also likened the SNP to Communists, has a Scottish shooting Estate.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
It would be a massive clusterfuck, because this country cant survive a week without trading with the EU. Our economy and legal system has been integrated into the EU for 40 years, and disentangling those will be a huge project. And if we want to keep on trading with the EU, then the stuff we sell has to be compliant with EU regulations anyway, and the stuff we buy from them will keep on being complaint as well.
All because a bunch of boomers are salty that the EU won't let them be quite as openly shitty to queers and brown people as they like and they think they can make it be 1960 again.
The AV vote was about AV, whereas the push at the moment is much more focussed on actual PR
It seems pretty uncontroversial to say that the pro-reform vote was split in the AV referendum between those that voted in favour because it was an improvement on FPTP and those that voted against because it wasn't PR
None of these people are going to deliberately hobble themselves unless they would benefit from PR and only the parties who can't win under FPTP benefit from PR.
Such is the age old problem of electoral reform.
But if the public can be made to make a large enough stink about it then who knows? If it looks like that will happen the Tories will mobilise the media machine again to shoot it down. I mean lets remember, they convinced people to vote against AV on the grounds the public were too stupid to understand it.
One of my motivations to vote yes was to spite the media campaign against it.
This isn't a valid comparison though. The SNP only stood in the Scottish constituencies where they gained overwhelming support, while UKIP stood nearly everywhere and only gained mild support in most locations. It's why you can't exactly match the popular vote - it would turn into a case of "who's rich enough to mount a campaign across more of the country than the opposition?".
I'm unconvinced a differet result would e any more inherently democratic or representative of the will of the British people.
To wit: DUP got 184,000 votes, Sinn Fein got 176,000 votes.
A mere 8,000 difference in votes, but DUP got twice the seats of Sinn Fein.
hes married to my godmother lol
and she sold the estate fyi
!
The issue there is that pure PR doesn't have that geographic link between votes and representation - under the present system you vote for an MP, who is your MP in quite a direct way.
Mixed Member PR is probably the most effective system at providing both proportionality and local representation, but I think to work in the UK you'd need some kind of federal settlement to make it tenable, given the presence of strictly local interest candidates and parties.
We should all watch CGP Grey's videos on electoral systems anyway.
Mixed member might be better, but what that infographic implies is handing over seats to people who can't compete for some nebulous idea of fairness.
Ulon closer inspection I don't think it quite lines up.