Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
neil8r
|
Highlands and Islands Regional listi had never noticed before that the Highlands and Islands region elects as many MSP's as the Central Scotland region despite there being such a difference in population.
Now i acccept that in Constituency seats we will have some seats that are very small such as Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles but why is this continued on in the Regional vote, in essence it means that a Highlands and Islands vote is worth more than a Central Scotland vote.
I would be interested to hear opinions on this.
|
SLG
|
I presumed it was all evened out as well. Seems quite a big difference though. H&I the best represented and NE the worst. This is based on total population, not electorate, but I doubt that would change the proportions much.
Also if you are in Glasgow or Central, only 41% of your members are elected on the list, but in H&I 47% are, making it more representative.
Constituency - Population - No Seats - Pop/seat
Highlands & Islands - 428,750 -15- 28583
West of Scotland - 603,840 -16 - 37740
Mid Scotland & Fife - 611,280 - 16 - 38205
Glasgow - 667,540 - 17 - 39267
Lothians - 683,000 - 16 - 42687
South of Scotland - 697,940 - 16 - 43621
North East Scotland - 704,280 - 16 - 44017
Central Scotland -725,870- 17 - 42698
|
macnumpty
|
Well, don't forget that the Regional boundaries are now more or less 12 years old: population changes since then won't be reflected.
And I suppose there's an amount of geographic feasibilty: maybe they're concerned that a larger Region would be harder to manage?
|
Economist
|
| Quote: | | Highlands and Islands vote is worth more than a Central Scotland vote. |
In many respects and given past voting patterns, that's probably not too much of a bad thing, really.
I don't at all agree with this AMS PR nonsense, and we all know the reason why the Scottish Parliament uses it. Besides what's the need for 129 MSPs - is a 100 not nearer the mark?
|
SLG
|
Whatever reason it was brought in for, the system we have is much fairer IMO than fptp and wouldn't want to see it scrapped. In the interest of fairness, I don't think that there should be such a large discrepancy in voting power for an individual in the one part of the country compared to another.
As for the number of MSPs, why 100? I think that if we want a representative parliament we need more not less MSPs. Also, only so many of those MSPs are going to be of a high standard, if we had an extra 100 MSPs, we might find another couple of dozen or so who are capable of a high level of debate.
|
Economist
|
| SLG wrote: | Whatever reason it was brought in for, the system we have is much fairer IMO than fptp and wouldn't want to see it scrapped. In the interest of fairness, I don't think that there should be such a large discrepancy in voting power for an individual in the one part of the country compared to another.
As for the number of MSPs, why 100? I think that if we want a representative parliament we need more not less MSPs. Also, only so many of those MSPs are going to be of a high standard, if we had an extra 100 MSPs, we might find another couple of dozen or so who are capable of a high level of debate. |
I agree that FPTP is probably the least fairest system, but I'm not sure the system we have is the best. I am no expert, but I do know that electoral Systems are a minefield, you have MMP systems that are designed to produce PR, others that aren't, then there is STV and different methods of PR.
I really think we could be doing with less MSPs, than we have - it doesn't have to be 100, but I think 129 is quite high . Besides we want less legislators in our lives not more? Surely?
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of the arguments about "how much a vote is worth, based on where you come from" - it reminds me of the old arguments used against Scotland's representation in Westminster, when we had 72 MP's. Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles are small consitituencies - a quarter the size of the electorate in some parts of Scotland yet they have an MSP and are disproportionately represented. I don't have a problem with that. Similarly with the Highlands list - the population is dispersed (even though, in population terms the Highlands are the fastest growing part of Scotland) and there is probably good justification for this. As long as you feel adequately represented in the Scottish Parliament (and I feel much more than adequately represented) then I'm not too sure it is such a big anomaly.
My point about it being good that the Highlands had disproportionate representation was supposed to be sarcastic (given the Central Belt's worship of Labour).
|
IF Convenor
|
Harrumpff!
If you want to discuss a lower number of MSPs you should be talking about fewer MSPs, not less MSPs.
OK, pedantic interlude over... carry on.
|
Economist
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | Harrumpff!
If you want to discuss a lower number of MSPs you should be talking about fewer MSPs, not less MSPs.
OK, pedantic interlude over... carry on. |
|
SLG
|
| Economist wrote: | | I agree that FPTP is probably the least fairest system, but I'm not sure the system we have is the best. I am no expert, but I do know that electoral Systems are a minefield, you have MMP systems that are designed to produce PR, others that aren't, then there is STV and different methods of PR. |
I'd like to see STV with large multi-member wards. Like local elections, but minimum of five members per region.
| Economist wrote: | | I really think we could be doing with less MSPs, than we have - it doesn't have to be 100, but I think 129 is quite high . Besides we want less legislators in our lives not more? Surely? |
Well yes, but not at all costs. There is no way to guarantee the quality of MSP so you need to accept that not all representatives will be up to the job. Then, as I said, it's important to cover a range of backgrounds and that will only come with a decent body of members. The equivalent numbers in Ireland, NZ, Norway etc are all significantly higher.
| Economist wrote: | | I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of the arguments about "how much a vote is worth, based on where you come from" - it reminds me of the old arguments used against Scotland's representation in Westminster, when we had 72 MP's. Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles are small consitituencies - a quarter the size of the electorate in some parts of Scotland yet they have an MSP and are disproportionately represented. I don't have a problem with that. Similarly with the Highlands list - the population is dispersed (even though, in population terms the Highlands are the fastest growing part of Scotland) and there is probably good justification for this. As long as you feel adequately represented in the Scottish Parliament (and I feel much more than adequately represented) then I'm not too sure it is such a big anomaly. |
Well sure, I can understand the argument for constituencies to cover a certain region (such as Shetland). But I can't see the argument for H&I to be overly represented on the list.
| Economist wrote: | | My point about it being good that the Highlands had disproportionate representation was supposed to be sarcastic (given the Central Belt's worship of Labour). |
IK knew that you were being sarcy, but some folk are quite happy to manipulate the system in our favour, yet complain when it's manipulated against us. The only solution is to have a fair system.
|
Economist
|
| SLG wrote: | | Well yes, but not at all costs. There is no way to guarantee the quality of MSP so you need to accept that not all representatives will be up to the job. Then, as I said, it's important to cover a range of backgrounds and that will only come with a decent body of members. The equivalent numbers in Ireland, NZ, Norway etc are all significantly higher. |
You are right there is no guarantee of the quality of MSPs. The only people with a reasonable idea of the quality of their candidates are the political parties themselves, when they select candidates for consitutencies or the list. Both Labour and the SNP are as bad as each other for not putting quality as a high priority when selecting their candidates (I'm not saying they don't have quality candidates or MSPs - they do, but sometimes it doesn't seem to be the most important consideration). It is important to have a range of backgrounds, but you don't need to keep increasing numbers to do this, you can have a fair and representative parliament with a lot fewer than 129 MSPs. Look at the HoC - 656 members and scant few of them are "quality" politicians, and is not really that representative of UK society. Just increasing numbers to increase the chances of getting decent legislators seems a bit counterproductive to me. Maybe with fewer places in parliament, it may even stimulate parties to put their "best" people in places where they will get elected, rather than the other way abouts?
|
neil8r
|
| SLG wrote: |
I'd like to see STV with large multi-member wards. Like local elections, but minimum of five members per region.
|
I'd actually worry about that way for Parliamentry members just for the fact it could result in a potential lack of focus on specific areas.
|
|
|
|