Scottish Parliament Election, 6th May 2021

[GALeftist]

Labour holds Dunbarton. That is big. Massive unionist tactical voting.

Oof, that stings. The Tories really didn't mess around in Dumbarton, looks like they got like 8%. Is there still a path to an SNP majority without that seat?

[Oryxslayer]

Labour holds Dunbarton. That is big. Massive unionist tactical voting.

Oof, that stings. The Tories really didn't mess around in Dumbarton, looks like they got like 8%. Is there still a path to an SNP majority without that seat?

Likely no. But surprises still may occur.

[Geoffrey Howe]

I'm quite sad for Scotland. Hope they don't hold an illegal referendum if the SNP gets a majority.

I'm a staunch unionist but if the SNP get a majority they should hold a referendum if the Scottish Parliament voted for it. Blatant hypocrisy from the Tories to say only they could stop a referendum at Holyrood and then to have Westminster block it when that is rejected.

I agree. As much as I don't want to see a second referendum, it would be extremely unwise for Westminster to block it. That could energize those in favor of independence. Also, while it would be hypocritical to say such a referendum needs a super-majority (considering the rules for the last indyref and the Brexit referendum), it is ridiculous that a bare majority could break up the union.

I agree. A friend of mine when I said the SNP might get a majority said it's time to repeal the Scotland Act 1988. I'm not sure how serious he's being. In Wales he supported the Abolish Party.
It's a tough position if the SNP manage to call a referendum. I think there should be a supermajority needed to break up a three-hundred year old union.

[Oryxslayer]

I also support a supermajority as a observer, not because of history, but because if you can prove you have overwhelming support than the majority of the opposition is less likely to remain bitter. If world-changing referenda are decided by say...52/48, then the opposition won't stop to try and see it overdone given the tight polling. Voters are polarized on identity, and you have to break or accommodate the opposing identity, one can't just let it take root and divide society. The goal is to a better future, and polarization in any such system - Scotland, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, or anyone else - makes things worse not better.

[AndyHogan14]

I'm quite sad for Scotland. Hope they don't hold an illegal referendum if the SNP gets a majority.

I'm a staunch unionist but if the SNP get a majority they should hold a referendum if the Scottish Parliament voted for it. Blatant hypocrisy from the Tories to say only they could stop a referendum at Holyrood and then to have Westminster block it when that is rejected.

I agree. As much as I don't want to see a second referendum, it would be extremely unwise for Westminster to block it. That could energize those in favor of independence. Also, while it would be hypocritical to say such a referendum needs a super-majority (considering the rules for the last indyref and the Brexit referendum), it is ridiculous that a bare majority could break up the union.

I agree. A friend of mine when I said the SNP might get a majority said it's time to repeal the Scotland Act 1988. I'm not sure how serious he's being. In Wales he supported the Abolish Party.
It's a tough position if the SNP manage to call a referendum. I think there should be a supermajority needed to break up a three-hundred year old union.

Maybe Westminster can agree to devolve the power to call binding referenda on independence to Holyrood so long as they require a super-majority. Maybe the SNP will go for it...I'm not sure if they **actually** want independence. If Scotland were to become and independent country then they couldn't blame Westminster for all their failings any more! Ha!

[Geoffrey Howe]

I'm quite sad for Scotland. Hope they don't hold an illegal referendum if the SNP gets a majority.

I'm a staunch unionist but if the SNP get a majority they should hold a referendum if the Scottish Parliament voted for it. Blatant hypocrisy from the Tories to say only they could stop a referendum at Holyrood and then to have Westminster block it when that is rejected.

I agree. As much as I don't want to see a second referendum, it would be extremely unwise for Westminster to block it. That could energize those in favor of independence. Also, while it would be hypocritical to say such a referendum needs a super-majority (considering the rules for the last indyref and the Brexit referendum), it is ridiculous that a bare majority could break up the union.

I agree. A friend of mine when I said the SNP might get a majority said it's time to repeal the Scotland Act 1988. I'm not sure how serious he's being. In Wales he supported the Abolish Party.
It's a tough position if the SNP manage to call a referendum. I think there should be a supermajority needed to break up a three-hundred year old union.

Maybe Westminster can agree to devolve the power to call binding referenda on independence to Holyrood so long as they require a super-majority. Maybe the SNP will go for it...I'm not sure if they **actually** want independence. If Scotland were to become and independent country then they couldn't blame Westminster on all their failings any more! Ha!

Not to fear - according to John Curtice:

'Jackie Baillie's successful defence of her Dumbarton constituency means it is now unlikely that the SNP will achieve an overall majority in the new Holyrood parliament.

[AndyHogan14]

I'm quite sad for Scotland. Hope they don't hold an illegal referendum if the SNP gets a majority.

I'm a staunch unionist but if the SNP get a majority they should hold a referendum if the Scottish Parliament voted for it. Blatant hypocrisy from the Tories to say only they could stop a referendum at Holyrood and then to have Westminster block it when that is rejected.

I agree. As much as I don't want to see a second referendum, it would be extremely unwise for Westminster to block it. That could energize those in favor of independence. Also, while it would be hypocritical to say such a referendum needs a super-majority (considering the rules for the last indyref and the Brexit referendum), it is ridiculous that a bare majority could break up the union.

I agree. A friend of mine when I said the SNP might get a majority said it's time to repeal the Scotland Act 1988. I'm not sure how serious he's being. In Wales he supported the Abolish Party.
It's a tough position if the SNP manage to call a referendum. I think there should be a supermajority needed to break up a three-hundred year old union.

Maybe Westminster can agree to devolve the power to call binding referenda on independence to Holyrood so long as they require a super-majority. Maybe the SNP will go for it...I'm not sure if they **actually** want independence. If Scotland were to become and independent country then they couldn't blame Westminster on all their failings any more! Ha!

Not to fear - according to John Curtice:

'Jackie Baillie's successful defence of her Dumbarton constituency means it is now unlikely that the SNP will achieve an overall majority in the new Holyrood parliament.

But the SNP+Greens will likely deliver a majority for an independence referendum and I still think it would be unwise for Westminster to block it because it would galvanize the pro-independence movement. Hopefully the Greens get wiped out!

[GALeftist]

I also support a supermajority as a observer, not because of history, but because if you can prove you have overwhelming support than the majority of the opposition is less likely to remain bitter. If world-changing referenda are decided by say...52/48, then the opposition won't stop to try and see it overdone given the tight polling. Voters are polarized on identity, and you have to break or accommodate the opposing identity, one can't just let it take root and divide society. The goal is to a better future, and polarization in any such system - Scotland, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, or anyone else - makes things worse not better.

I disagree with this. Requiring supermajorities in referenda implies that the status quo is somehow inherently a more legitimate position than revising said status quo, and I'm not sure why this would be the case for referenda more than anything else. After all, couldn't you make the same case regarding elections in general? Joe Biden didn't get a supermajority, and you could argue that his becoming president furthered polarization, so why not just stick with the status quo, i.e. the Trump administration?

[AndyHogan14]

I also support a supermajority as a observer, not because of history, but because if you can prove you have overwhelming support than the majority of the opposition is less likely to remain bitter. If world-changing referenda are decided by say...52/48, then the opposition won't stop to try and see it overdone given the tight polling. Voters are polarized on identity, and you have to break or accommodate the opposing identity, one can't just let it take root and divide society. The goal is to a better future, and polarization in any such system - Scotland, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, or anyone else - makes things worse not better.

I disagree with this. Requiring supermajorities in referenda implies that the status quo is somehow inherently a more legitimate position than revising said status quo, and I'm not sure why this would be the case for referenda more than anything else. After all, couldn't you make the same case regarding elections in general? Joe Biden didn't get a supermajority, and you could argue that his becoming president furthered polarization, so why not just stick with the status quo, i.e. the Trump administration?

But we are talking about a permanent, constitutional change. I think the Brexit referendum and the first independence referendum should have required a supermajority as well. Biden, with a bare majority in 2020, can be turfed out in four years, Brexit is permanent (at least for a generation) and Scottish independence would also be permanent. For such a change, there should be overwhelming consensus.

EDIT: I also think that it is mind-blowingly stupid that the California constitution can be changed with a simple majority as well.

[Zinneke]

You don't have to look as far as Joe Biden or the US. The Tories have a thumping majority despite not having a majority of the vote, and largely thanks to an outdated electoral system. It didn't stop them spitting in the face of the other 3 nations while banging the UNITED Kingdom drum. Again, it helps explain the Scottish Nationalist stance, even if I think another referendum would likely fail and that the best strategic course is devo max, and letting the English nationalist movement fry itself in its own fat.

[Oryxslayer]

I also support a supermajority as a observer, not because of history, but because if you can prove you have overwhelming support than the majority of the opposition is less likely to remain bitter. If world-changing referenda are decided by say...52/48, then the opposition won't stop to try and see it overdone given the tight polling. Voters are polarized on identity, and you have to break or accommodate the opposing identity, one can't just let it take root and divide society. The goal is to a better future, and polarization in any such system - Scotland, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, or anyone else - makes things worse not better.

I disagree with this. Requiring supermajorities in referenda implies that the status quo is somehow inherently a more legitimate position than revising said status quo, and I'm not sure why this would be the case for referenda more than anything else. After all, couldn't you make the same case regarding elections in general? Joe Biden didn't get a supermajority, and you could argue that his becoming president furthered polarization, so why not just stick with the status quo, i.e. the Trump administration?

Ah but that's because you interpret it as purely furthering polarization. Holding a referendum on Constitutional questions that by definition will be a massive and likely permeant project should be able to prove to the opposition that the people want it, so its time to lay down your arms. If change occurs with no chance to change back, like normal party politics, than you don't want to be fighting a guerilla war (Northern Ireland...)with the half of the populace who does not support your policy on purely humanitarian groups. An election by definition can not lead to such drastic changes, and therefore the parties can fight about it.

This isn't some unorthodox view, plenty of US States require thresholds much higher than 50% to approve constitutional amendments. But I'm not here to argue because this is a debate that can go on forever. National identities are powerful.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

[AndyHogan14]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

This. 100% this.

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

[parochial boy]

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

They work fine here. Difference is that they are an integrated part of the political system, with clear rules on what makes a referendum happen or not. Big difference to the the electoral monarchy style executive initiated ones you have in the UK.

Referendums are a good thing - The British format of using a referendum as a way to patronise the electorate isn't any more of a genuine exercise in democracy than the joke elections of Ghadaffi era Libya were, and no-one would argue those were a genuine case against elections as a whole.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

They work fine here. Difference is that they are an integrated part of the political system, with clear rules on what makes a referendum happen or not. Big difference to the the electoral monarchy style executive initiated ones you have in the UK.

Referendums are a good thing - The British format of using a referendum as a way to patronise the electorate isn't any more of a genuine exercise in democracy than the joke elections of Ghadaffi era Libya were, and no-one would argue those were a genuine case against elections as a whole.

Clearly, they don't work in a system that isn't used to them. There obviously need to be certain rules in place - like agreeing the contents of a measure before voting on it. A lot of issues around Brexit might have been less painful if we hadn't had politicians running around declaring the 'will of the people' on something they hadn't voted about.

As for a Swiss style system, I'm still opposed, but it's better than the mishmash we have had. Another problem is David Cameron holding referendums as a way to solve political problems for him - see Scotland, AV. Back in the day, the Tories were opposed to referendums as a constitutional device; hence they denounced Harold Wilson in 1975 and Ken Clarke voted against holding one in 2016.

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a UK wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

[Zinneke]

Anyway Cummings has gone off on one

https://news.sky.com/story/dominic-cummings-lectures-both-boris-johnson-and-sir-keir-starmer-in-post-election-tirade-12299254

dangerously based.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a EU wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

And so would Scottish independence be dictated by a narrow majority, create a new constitutional order and the terms determined by Nicola Sturgeon's clique.

Why should Boris get to handle Brexit? Well, because he was elected leader by his ruling party; which was endorsed a few months later by a thumping majority of seats. (I didn't support the Tories in 2019.)

Also, I have a pet theory that the reason Canada is so much nicer seeming and has such saner politics than America is because it uses the Westminster model.

[afleitch]

List vote in Scotland with 16/73 counted:

SNP 40% (-3)
CON 24% (+2)
LAB 18% (-1)
LD 7% (-)
GRN 6% (+1)
ALBA 2%

[GALeftist]

List vote in Scotland with 16/73 counted:

SNP 40% (-3)
CON 24% (+2)
LAB 18% (-1)
LD 7% (-)
GRN 6% (+1)
ALBA 2%

Seems like the Green surge which was anticipated didn't quite materialize. Probably won't make much of a difference, though, SNP + Greens will likely be the government again

[Zinneke]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a EU wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

And so would Scottish independence be dictated by a narrow majority, create a new constitutional order and the terms determined by Nicola Sturgeon's clique.

I'm not denying that's an issue, but not only do I have more faith in Sturgeon to accomodate those who still want a link with whatever is left of the UK, but I also have faith in the Scottish electoral system to deliver the will of the Scottish people with regards to what they want from the Union and Scotland than I do the Westminster system.

Why should Boris get to handle Brexit? Well, because he was elected leader by his ruling party; which was endorsed a few months later by a thumping majority of seats. (I didn't support the Tories in 2019.)

A majority of seats but not a majority of votes.
And you happen to live in a Union of nations, where such differences should be allowed to be considered. Otherwise you might as well just let England vote every four years and invite some bagpipers and Billy Connolly to represent Scotland in the HoC. THat's the level of contempt Johnson probably has for Scotland anyway.

Also, there is zero constitutional precedent of a return of powers from a supranational organization to the United Kingdom, yet it was decided all but a few symbolic ones would go to the Westminster government. Where is the legitimacy this? It has to be put to a referendum as to where the powers go, or at least a legal council.

Anyway this is more for the Individual Politics section.

[Storr]

List vote in Scotland with 16/73 counted:

SNP 40% (-3)
CON 24% (+2)
LAB 18% (-1)
LD 7% (-)
GRN 6% (+1)
ALBA 2%

Scottish Parliament seats with 48/129 declared:
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c37d28xdn99t/scottish-parliament-election-2021

SNP  39 (+3)
CON  3  (-2)
LAB   2  (-1)
LD    4  (no change)
GRN  0  (nc)
ALBA 0  (nc)

Edit: Looking at BBC's election map, if the SNP holds all of the not yet declared constituency seats it won in 2016 (23), it would have 62 seats.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For one thing, I am strongly opposed to referendums per se. And yes, the status quo is inherently better insofar as erratically changing course based on a small majority of voters in a binary question is bad.

In my view, referendums are incompatible with representative democracy. But that's another matter.

The idea that there should be a referendum every few years on the existence of the United Kingdom strikes me as ridiculous, especially with ephemeral issues tipping the balance. In the long run, how we are governed is more important than any day-to-day issue.

Please, after Brexit, explain to me how binary, vague referendums on major issues are a good thing.

The idea of FPTP for me seems much more ridiculous.

This new referendum is entirely in the context of Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest constitutional change since one can remember and it was done without the consent of the other nations, with Tory fringe members having more influence than elected leaders of said nations. Its a pure English Nationalist project, entirely dictated by the internal politics of a party that is barely represented in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That in itself is much more ridiculous than a referendum every two years.

If the English National Tory Party love the Union so much, why don't they invite the FMs and political representatives to be stakeholders in the Brexit process? The answer of course, is that they have always viewed these nations as boils on their arses rather than genuine compatriots. Doubly so once it became apparent these "fairy folk" wouldn't deliver MPs.

Whatever your emotional stance on the Union (and again, I neither want it to break up nor think its a good idea), its constitutional fabric is utterly broken. If you love the Union, you'd try and listen to SNP demands and take heed.

Don't be ridiculous. Wales voted Leave. Over a million people in Scotland voted Leave. Why do you think we had a referendum in the first place? All three main parties supported Remain overall. It is because the EU was an unpopular organisation which many people wanted to leave, not least because they felt politicians hadn't listened to them on that. And Cameron held a referendum as a way to win UKIP votes - an example of FPTP working.

But the entire leaving process was dictated by a narrow majority, and created a new constitutional order. It was at that point that a Scottish referendum became legitimate again. Why should Bojo the clown and some fringe tories who get together to make him uncomfortable under some "research group" tag get to decide what the Brexit looks like, and where all the EU powers go to (Westminster, of course).

I'm not denying Brexit was a EU wide vote. In fact I'm saying the entire process thereafter was much less legitimate, because Westminster democracy is outdated.

And so would Scottish independence be dictated by a narrow majority, create a new constitutional order and the terms determined by Nicola Sturgeon's clique.

I'm not denying that's an issue, but not only do I have more faith in Sturgeon to accomodate those who still want a link with whatever is left of the UK, but I also have faith in the Scottish electoral system to deliver the will of the Scottish people with regards to what they want from the Union and Scotland than I do the Westminster system.

Why should Boris get to handle Brexit? Well, because he was elected leader by his ruling party; which was endorsed a few months later by a thumping majority of seats. (I didn't support the Tories in 2019.)

A majority of seats but not a majority of votes.
And you happen to live in a Union of nations, where such differences should be allowed to be considered. Otherwise you might as well just let England vote every four years and invite some bagpipers and Billy Connolly to represent Scotland in the HoC. THat's the level of contempt Johnson probably has for Scotland anyway.

Also, there is zero constitutional precedent of a return of powers from a supranational organization to the United Kingdom, yet it was decided all but a few symbolic ones would go to the Westminster government. Where is the legitimacy this? It has to be put to a referendum as to where the powers go, or at least a legal council.

Anyway this is more for the Individual Politics section.

In any case, I have no more faith in Nicola Sturgeon than Boris Johnson. Scotland has long been over represented at Westminster I believe.