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.
 

See your forums statistics


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Rinty

My Confusion With SNP Policy

I have just heard Kenny McAskill on TV bemoaning Labour and Jack McConnel's refusal to call for more powers for Holyrood. He asked why are railways devolved but not other issues. This follows McConnel's speech last night where he said that more powers were not necessary.

Yesterday, Tommy Sheridans bill to re-nationalise Scotland's railways was voted down at committe stage, the SNPs Fergus Ewing agreed with the executive that we do not have the power to do this even though it is a grey area.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/72872.html

Shouldn't the SNP be willing to test the grey areas if more power is what is needed? Also, shouldn't they be capitalising on this as an example of Labours London rule, i.e. we devolve power to run the railways but not to decide how they are run.

The most confusing thing about this is that it is SNP policy to take back control of the railways from private hands. As can be seen from this part of their manifesto "release our potential".

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ass03/man/snp/html/q14.htm

Yet when Tommy Sheridan sought support for this bill all SNP MSP's were told not to support it and, in fact, Ewing exercised the whip, barring the MSPs from individually supporting it. One SNP MSP, who I personally approached to support the bill, said that he supported it, that the SNP supported it, but Ewing would not allow the party to support what could be seen as a success for a rival party.


As we are heading to our most important election for years, if not ever, why are the SNP not backing sensible policies for Scotland and working with other pro-independence MSPs and parties?

I am posting this here as I have perhaps missed something and there may be a good reason for this, can anyone enlighten me?
SLG

Just party politics Rinty, that's all. One of the things I hate most about the party.
Highlander

I have a question. Why should the government be able to wrestle a private company fropm people so that is can be publically owned? I have no problem with a government buying a company that is for sale but forcefully I am against.

Just like I am against the forced land grab by communities. If the land is for sale then yes the community should have the opportunity to buy at a going rate with loans from private companies just like everyone else has to do to get a house, you get a mortgage from a bank not a nice cheap one from the government.
Avatar

Sounds pretty daft to me - but then yon Fergus is a bit of a plonker.
FALSYDE

Don't worry Rinty, you're not alone in being confused. I think some of them might be too but their heart's in the right place. The line of patients for the home for the confused is just getting longer every day you'll have to wait your turn, unless of course you are up to date at BUPA, but just don't try to jump me in the Q.
Katie1984

Always thought Kenny McCaskill was a prat - loads of people in Edinburgh SNP hate him!
Rinty

g

I know its just party politics but this is not the first time, as I have highlighted here re the council tax and school meals.

Surely the MSPs owe it to the party members to do all that they can to at least attempt to get policy implemented, even if it does mean a success for other parties?

If I was an SNP member I would be angry personally. In Solidarity and previously in the SSP the MSPs would not have a choice, they simply have to support policy agreed by the membership when it comes up in parliament.

What really bugs me about this is that it goes against the spirit of IF and IC, we should all be working together where we can to defeat New Labour and move towards independence.

This was a great chance to attack McConnels claim that we dont need extra powers when it is clear that Westminster have devolved the power to run railways but NOT the power to decide how they are run. Its a missed opportunity for the SNP due to their managers worrying too much about losing votes to Sheridan than attacking the real enemy.

Obviously we still need to compete for votes and we should get stuck in to each other where we disagree but to carry out sneaky moves like this is not helping our common cause.

Highlander, no-one is grabbing anything "forcefully", the franchise for rail is sold off in time limited blocks, we are proposing that when it next comes up that we run it through a publicly owned company so your assertion that it is equivalent to a "land grab" is just nonsense.
SLG

Re: g

Rinty wrote:
I know its just party politics but this is not the first time, as I have highlighted here re the council tax and school meals.

Surely the MSPs owe it to the party members to do all that they can to at least attempt to get policy implemented, even if it does mean a success for other parties?

If I was an SNP member I would be angry personally. In Solidarity and previously in the SSP the MSPs would not have a choice, they simply have to support policy agreed by the membership when it comes up in parliament.

What really bugs me about this is that it goes against the spirit of IF and IC, we should all be working together where we can to defeat New Labour and move towards independence.

This was a great chance to attack McConnels claim that we dont need extra powers when it is clear that Wesminster have devolved the power to run railways but NOT the power to decide how they are run. Its a missed opportunity for the SNP due to their managers worrying too much about losing votes to Sheridan than attacking the real enemy.

Obviously we still need to compete for votes and we should get stuck in to each other where we disagree but to carry out sneaky moves like this is not helping our common cause.

There are some in the SNP that don't believe in the IC or IF. They only believe in the SNP. The SSP lost the SNP a lot of votes in 2003, they don't want the same to happen with Solidarity. Now's the perfect time to try and keep Solidarity down. From a party point of view I can understand what they're doing and it looks to me like they are the people running the show.

The problem for folk like me is, IMO the SNP are still the only game in town. I don't realistically see where else I can cast my vote. The SSP were getting to a point where they were could have been a real alternative, but not anymore. Solidarity will have to prove themselves first before people like me would consider voting for them. There is nothing on the right. So that just leaves the SGP. Who I would consider voting for fptp in my constituency, should they stand, and if they weren't to select a Unionist as they did in 2005.
Rinty

t

I take your point on voting in 2007 SLG but this is about SNP politicians deliberately blocking SNP policy decided by SNP members, what is the point of working to get them elected to Holyrood if they are failing to do all that they can to get SNP policy adopted by the Scottish Parliament.

The SNP probably lost their own votes in 2003 rather than the SSP losing the votes for them. Ultimately though, what transpired was an increased vote for independence and more pro-independence MSPs. If the SNP dont think that is a good thing we have to wonder what they are for.
SLG

Re: t

Rinty wrote:
I take your point on voting in 2007 SLG but this is about SNP politicians deliberately blocking SNP policy decided by SNP members, what is the point of working to get them elected to Holyrood if they are failing to do all that they can to get SNP policy adopted by the Scottish Parliament.

Well it's about priorities. I don't agree with it, but you could argue that the SNP will be in a better position to impliment policy is they have more representation. So they give up some short term policy gains in favour of 'seeing off' a party that threatens to take votes off them at the next election. I don't agree with that myself, but I can see how someone might try and justify it.

Rinty wrote:
The SNP probably lost their own votes in 2003 rather than the SSP losing the votes for them. Ultimately though, what transpired was an increased vote for independence and more pro-independence MSPs. If the SNP dont think that is a good thing we have to wonder what they are for.

Well many in the party see it as a good thing, some don't - they just see the drop in the SNP vote. Unfortunately, I think this is the way it's going to be. I don't think it's the best way to maximise the pro-independence vote, but we have to live with it, and it's going to be up to the other pro-independence parties to fight their corner.
Rinty

g

Quote:
Well it's about priorities. I don't agree with it, but you could argue that the SNP will be in a better position to impliment policy is they have more representation. So they give up some short term policy gains in favour of 'seeing off' a party that threatens to take votes off them at the next election. I don't agree with that myself, but I can see how someone might try and justify it.


Thats why I think it is a mistake, they are always accused of having only "independence" as a policy and argue back saying that they have a range of policies for Holyrood that would improve the lives of scots pre-independence. They then vote against their own policies in a short-sighted attempt to stop a small party when they would gain so much more from taking Tommys bill and being seeing as leading it through Holyrood. The SNP have never made the jump to the level of representation needed and it carrying out policies in Holyrood that would give the public the confidence in them to make that leap, IMO.

Quote:
Well many in the party see it as a good thing, some don't - they just see the drop in the SNP vote. Unfortunately, I think this is the way it's going to be. I don't think it's the best way to maximise the pro-independence vote, but we have to live with it, and it's going to be up to the other pro-independence parties to fight their corner.


I see it is a bigger issue than that, about 50% of people didnt vote in 2003, part of that is that they see things like this happening. These sort of events make them wonder if the SNP would do a "lib dems" when in power and abandon the manifesto that got them there. Our voting system makes it extremely unlikely that the SNP would ever win a majority of seats so leading a caolition of pro-independence parties is their best bet, IMHO. To me this sort of tactic has failed them in the past and will fail them again. Its short sighted and if anything will make more voters go to the smaller parties rather than less as the SNP could ultimately be seen as being as cynical as the other mainstream parties. I know it is easuer for small parties but our MSPs simply vote along with policies we agree with and vote against ones that we disgree with. I belive that is what the public want politicians to do.
FALSYDE

Just a wee polite reposte to SLG in respect of remark about there not being an alternative on the right. If by that we can talk about centre right, would Scotland ever have use for a right wing party? Not that those folks have no rights to their views, but I am concious of the fact that several attempts have been made to launch versions of, e.g. the People's Party, UKIP Scotland and they got buried by voter apathy.

If we are talking centre right, the as of Monday past the SEP now has a Regional List candidate for Lothian, plus one fr Highlands & Islands Regional List with discussions in respect of two other Regional lists.

Names etc will be announced late this year.

In our view this will give those on the centre and centre right who are not minded to give their votes to the SNP, for whatever reason[s] they will now have an increasing opportunity to do so. The Tories have passed their tipping point several years ago, I am not being, or intending to be unpleasant about it but the generality of their activists, if that's not an oxymoron, have yet to realise the game is up. It is difficult for anyone in any walk of life who has lived with, probably grown up with, a certainty only to find it melting away and their natural inclination is to discount such and dispute any such possibility, we are not just talking politics, try football and religion, and out of date industrial processes, etc.

Labour have a similar problem but their tipping point of no return might not just have been reached yet but our analysis, shared with some of the pundits, would suggest that if it isn't reached in 2007 it may well be so in 2011. Time will tell but if McConnell's performance as first numptie is anything to go by it is speeding up that little bit faster, so please stop attacking him, give him all the rope possible he'll do the job for us. Relax and have a laugh.
SLG

Well, I respect what you and your party are doing Iain and I look forward to hearing who is standing in the Lothians, but, like Solidarity, it's not enough just to exist and stand. As a new party it will take a lot to win over voters like me. I need to know that enough others have also been persuaded before I'll vote for a new party so that I can be sure my vote won't be wasted. At the moment, despite the issues, I'll still vote SNP. But I'm open to persuasion.

And yes, I definitely meant centre-right. There is no need for a Scottish nationalist version of the BNP!
FALSYDE

centre right options

I appreciate your views, and understand why but would chide you a wee bit as if there was the need to prove certainty in an option, in whatever field then I doubt if anyone would make a new move, ever.

One of the negatives, and yes we have lots, is that there is an awful tendency in Scotland to wait to see if others make a move. As a society, we have been so corroded by the events of history over whcih we have had no control that rather than wait for the worm to turn the most innovative of each generation have quit and emigrated. Were that outlook to have prevailed at the outset of the two original parties which came together to make up the present day SNP then there would have been no SNP.

We in the SEP do NOT seek or intend to ask for any nationalist first vote, i.e constituency vote in 2007, we only ask voters of all nationalist persuasions to use their second vote intelligently and to vote first for the sitting nationalist MSP, then secondly for the next most likely nationalist party to succeed based on the last electoral result. When it comes to their second, i.e. Regionals List vote to then use it for another nationalist party nearest their personal political ethos. That may be if they lean further left say the SSP/Solidarity or if they lean further right then we would hope that from our website and the policies there that they might consider the SEP would be a worthy home for their valuable vote, and it is valuable to them, the party chosen, but more importantly for Scotland.

What we are talking about in reality is a paradigm shift in attitudes by voters, put Scotland first and use their vote strategically to get the best result. A result which will if we are all savvy enough could perfectly well deliver 65 MSPs which is what it will take, thereafter a referendum would be a redundant excercise as the people will have already spoken.

I would now like to make a proposal to the folks who regularly post here and those who do so infrequently as well as those who stay back and watch and read with interest.

My proposal is as follows, we will turn over to this website, and any similar other one with a predication towards our country's independence, a complete voting analysis of the record across Scotland, last time and the time before if requested. The objective? This would be to let everyone who wanted to, to download the info for their own specific area and they could then use this info to campaign for strategic voting amongst the folks they know and hopefully the folks they dont so that the highest possible number of nationalist MSPs arrive at Holyrood in May.

Its a motivational issue, either people really care about getting a result or they just bump their gums on this or some other forum and leave it all to chance. Yes I know Scotland is full of chancers, but we can do this thing if we work together. I personally get exasperated by some of the snarling and back biting sometimes here. If you're left you're left, if your not your not, so bloody what. Its the result that matters and if I thought by putting myself out for Rinty's lot e.g. it would mean stopping a Unionist from getting in then show me the way.

Via the Regional route each party needs c. 5%-6% of the second vote, gives these votes to a nationalist party and the jobs done. This very fact is why I am told earlier tonight by A.N.Other that there was a meeting earlier this week of the Executive to see how best they can undermine the nationalist candidates, and that's all of them and all parties. Why because they have done the same sums we have and they know they are in deep s**t, mainly Labour but I don't know why the Lib Dems should get off lightly. On an earlier posting some days ago I warned of this as we had info from a different source that the fight is going to be really unpleasant and all sorts of nasty stuff will be used to discredit and damage folk. A lot will be hurtful and it may well back fire on them if the do go down this road but meanwhile innocent folk will suffer and their families with them.

Bear in mind the old saying, "if we don't hang together, we will hang separately". The question really is; are people up for it or is this just another talking shop?

Let me know if the idea of these stats appeals, we can either do it via this forum if we can get the space here, it will take a lot of space, and or, as a FREE down load from our SEP website. Now that's an offer that will piss them off!
Mctosh45

Falsyde ,
Sounds good to me.
Rinty

g

Again we are straying from the point of the thread to talking about votes in 2007 which is covered in several threads.

My point in starting this thread is twofold:

1. Do the SNP have policies that are decided by members that they will refuse to vote for in parliament if other parties introduce them?

2. Is this actually beneficial to the SNP and/or acceptable to SNP members?
FALSYDE

Rinty I understand the point of your thread but realistically there would be little point in expecting any SNP members to stand up and be counted in advance of 2007. The poijt is, if their policies were decided and agreed upon at their conferance by a majority vote then they either accept that, or the quit and if the conversation I had this lunch time with one such is anything to go by then some are quiting, my informant suggests a lot more have decided to quit but not for the reaons you might wish for i.e. not left enough, they feel they have gone too far left.

This brings me back, again, to the point I made before and which he made to me today, i.e. we are not a normal country, political party wise. There are nationalist parties on the centre left, left and far left but previous to the SEP there was none centre right, and none on the right. Personally I think a right wing nationalist party in Scotland would struggle but those of that persuasion, if any, are as entitled to their 'position' as you and I are to ours.

If I have inadvertently blundered across your thread then it was no intended.
Rinty

u

Quote:
a lot more have decided to quit but not for the reaons you might wish for i.e. not left enough, they feel they have gone too far left


If you read my posts in this thread and other threads on similar subjects you will see that i dont "wish" the SNP to be more left or more anything other than sensible.

I have, as you know, suggested that a strong right wing (economically) party in Scotland would be a good thing.

My point is that having a one catch-all pro-independence party will ultimately cost us winning independence and that we should be looking for a coalition of pro-independence parties who agree to disagree on the economics until after the election or on an issue by issue basis. The SNP attempt to be that coalition, a business friendly party and social justice party all at the same time. All evidence suggests a fragmentation into several parties increases the votes and likelyhood of independence.

In this thread my point is that the SNPs desire for power for their party rather than power for Scotland clouds their vision and ultimately harms them more than it benefits them.

I do agree though that they are quitting. We have three good ex-SNP activists that joined our SSP branch (now a Solidarity branch) after the SNP voted to keep the council tax earlier this year.
FALSYDE

Thanks Rinty, I am on board at lastand agree with your general thesis, its one we use ourselves.

I am slow but I get there in the end.
SLG

Quote:
I would now like to make a proposal to the folks who regularly post here and those who do so infrequently as well as those who stay back and watch and read with interest.

My proposal is as follows, we will turn over to this website, and any similar other one with a predication towards our country's independence, a complete voting analysis of the record across Scotland, last time and the time before if requested. The objective? This would be to let everyone who wanted to, to download the info for their own specific area and they could then use this info to campaign for strategic voting amongst the folks they know and hopefully the folks they dont so that the highest possible number of nationalist MSPs arrive at Holyrood in May.

I think this is definitely needed. I for one would be willing to vote for any of the nationalist parties if I thought it would genuinely increase the overall pro-independence representation in parliament. I would even be willing to vote for a member of a Unionist party should they commit to voting for a referendum on independence.


Quote:
Its a motivational issue, either people really care about getting a result or they just bump their gums on this or some other forum and leave it all to chance. Yes I know Scotland is full of chancers, but we can do this thing if we work together. I personally get exasperated by some of the snarling and back biting sometimes here. If you're left you're left, if your not your not, so bloody what. Its the result that matters and if I thought by putting myself out for Rinty's lot e.g. it would mean stopping a Unionist from getting in then show me the way.

I think this is the way forward and it's something I, and I'm sure others on this site, would embrace. However you'll never get everyone behind it. Some folk will want to continue to support their favoured party above and beyond what any analysis suggest they vote.

Quote:
Via the Regional route each party needs c. 5%-6% of the second vote, gives these votes to a nationalist party and the jobs done. This very fact is why I am told earlier tonight by A.N.Other that there was a meeting earlier this week of the Executive to see how best they can undermine the nationalist candidates, and that's all of them and all parties. Why because they have done the same sums we have and they know they are in deep s**t, mainly Labour but I don't know why the Lib Dems should get off lightly. On an earlier posting some days ago I warned of this as we had info from a different source that the fight is going to be really unpleasant and all sorts of nasty stuff will be used to discredit and damage folk. A lot will be hurtful and it may well back fire on them if the do go down this road but meanwhile innocent folk will suffer and their families with them.

Well I can't see this being nearly as effective for the Unionists. Many Labour voters support independence and many Lib Dems support a referendum. Even Unionist Labour voters are IMO unlikely to vote Tory. If the SNP were calling for an immediate beginning to negotiations, this might work, but with only a referendum at state, no.

Quote:
Bear in mind the old saying, "if we don't hang together, we will hang separately". The question really is; are people up for it or is this just another talking shop?

Let me know if the idea of these stats appeals, we can either do it via this forum if we can get the space here, it will take a lot of space, and or, as a FREE down load from our SEP website. Now that's an offer that will piss them off!

Unfortunately, while up for it, I live in the Lothians and the SNP are unlikely to win fptp seats so I'm pretty sure they will still be the best party for me to vote for on the list.

Well I'm not sure what format you have them in, but we should definitely present this information in some way. We were planning on opening up a new section of the forum to take threads specifically on the 2007 election. Perhaps it's now time to do that and we can have a thread dedicated to your analysis of each list region. Sound good?
October1974

a very good idea indeed.
parkhead_rfb

agree with rinty here, the snp have acted shockingly. how the hell can you justify voting against your own policies.

I know some possible explanations have been given but none of them wash. if i were an snp member i would be very, very angry.
FALSYDE

Let me know when the new section of the forum is in some advanced stage and I'll try my best to come across with the goods.

The data sets we have are on EXCEL format, can that be accommodated? They are also divided variously by Electoral List Region [x8] but we also have them in Constituency format however I would need to try to distill that down somehow to reduce the space needed here. I will try to apply the two remaining grey cells but should anyone else have any suggestions we could work on this together.
Rinty

t

I think the analysis of voting is a great idea but the regional votes are not as simple as getting 5-6% of the vote. The list vote is taken against share of FPTP seats. So 6% for a smaller pro-independence party would get them a seat, but if the SNP start to pick up FPTP seats they might not get list seats so easily. Where I live (south) labour got the biggest list votes but no list seats as they already had their share through a big lump of the FPTP seats in Ayrshire and Dumfries. In my region another FPTP seat for the SNP would almost certainly mean that the tories would take one of their lists seats from them equalling no net gain for pro-independence parties.

For the record I plan to vote SNP first vote (Adam Ingram) and Solidarity second (Rosie Byrne).
SLG

FALSYDE wrote:
Let me know when the new section of the forum is in some advanced stage and I'll try my best to come across with the goods.

The data sets we have are on EXCEL format, can that be accommodated? They are also divided variously by Electoral List Region [x8] but we also have them in Constituency format however I would need to try to distill that down somehow to reduce the space needed here. I will try to apply the two remaining grey cells but should anyone else have any suggestions we could work on this together.

Ok, I'll probably do this next weekend. I don't think we can support excel, but we can link to your site and pull out some of the key figures.
FALSYDE

Rinty I very much appreciate the points you make. The sysyem is not perfect via either route, constituency and regional lst however it is way time betetr than first past the past I think you'll agree. Anyway, it's what we have to work with and I just think if folks could see some data info rlevent to where they live it might at least set them off thinking how they can "work the system" to achieve what we all want, even when we will later argue, vehemently no doubt for our chosen preference, you yours - me mine, whatever - but we will both end up having to accept a compromise which is OK for me as I always felt the winner takes all where you had the country rules by sometimes with a party getting little better than 35%, That was NOT democracy.
Rinty

y

Totally agree falsyde. The real big problem with the UK elections held by FPTP is that it is possible for the party with the biggest vote nationally to not win a single seat never mind take power!
Firefox

SLG wrote:
FALSYDE wrote:
Let me know when the new section of the forum is in some advanced stage and I'll try my best to come across with the goods.

The data sets we have are on EXCEL format, can that be accommodated? They are also divided variously by Electoral List Region [x8] but we also have them in Constituency format however I would need to try to distill that down somehow to reduce the space needed here. I will try to apply the two remaining grey cells but should anyone else have any suggestions we could work on this together.

Ok, I'll probably do this next weekend. I don't think we can support excel, but we can link to your site and pull out some of the key figures.


In Excel, you can "Save as" a HTM (i.e. internet file) and then upload that file to a server of your choice (say, an ourscotland geocities site as an example) for figures. Purely as a one off, obviously.
Maol.Chaluim

.. or you can point a link directly to an excel file...
Highlander

Talking about voting systems. Why not just make the whole country one big constituency and then give the parties the corresponding vote % as a an mp/msp %? So a 35% vote for one party = 35% of the mp/msp will be from that party. Simple. However, then there will be a lot of coalitions.
Avatar

"Talking about voting systems. Why not just make the whole country one big constituency and then give the parties the corresponding vote % as a an mp/msp %? So a 35% vote for one party = 35% of the mp/msp will be from that party. Simple. However, then there will be a lot of coalitions."

not a bad idea, have 100 mp's selected based on that model and have a group of mps that are independents selected to represent local constituencies
IF Convenor

How exactly do the electorate get to choose their MSPs under this system? It seems to me they're only going to be allowed to choose their party and then let the party choose the actual MSPs, just as happens now with the second (list) vote.

I would much rather have a system by which the voters directly select the candidate(s) of their choice. The best option for me is the Single Transferrable Vote system with multi-member (at least 5) constituencies.
Rinty

t

I agree with IF although I think that 7 member seats is the most democratic version of STV.

The electoral commission are looking to introduce a change to the list system for 2011 in that voters could select names rather than parties on lists and are still looking into a totally transformed system of STV across the country for 2015.
Avatar

"How exactly do the electorate get to choose their MSPs under this system? It seems to me they're only going to be allowed to choose their party and then let the party choose the actual MSPs, just as happens now with the second (list) vote.

I would much rather have a system by which the voters directly select the candidate(s) of their choice. The best option for me is the Single Transferrable Vote system with multi-member (at least 5) constituencies."

Exactly they wouldn't - but at the same time what is the point of selecting individual "party" msp's if they all have to tow the party line/obey the whip anyway? - this chamber could be just used for creating an executive - while the the second chamber is used for the individually selected msp's to represent each constituency.
IF Convenor

Right... so stopping people picking their actual representatives but only allowing them to pick the political party will really sort out the voter apathy, won't it?
Avatar

"Right... so stopping people picking their actual representatives but only allowing them to pick the political party will really sort out the voter apathy, won't it?"


sorry maybe I didnt put my point across well - chamber 1 as Highlander says - "Why not just make the whole country one big constituency and then give the parties the corresponding vote % as a an mp/msp %? So a 35% vote for one party = 35% of the mp/msp will be from that party. Simple. However, then there will be a lot of coalitions."

chamber 2 - have msp's that are not affiliated with any political party but are elected on their ability to represent their own constituency. So the public will vote for a party to form an executive, opposition etc and a second chamber of msp's who are elected to represent their local area and who are free from "towing the party line" - and so yes will help with voter apathy.
IF Convenor

Oh right, so all the really important stuff like who runs the country is selected by party bosses while the punters get to choose a few folk to sit in a second chamber and do... what? Sounds very democratic.
Avatar

"Oh right, so all the really important stuff like who runs the country is selected by party bosses"

Are you somehow implying that that doesn't happen now? parties select who stands in each constituency, select who does which ministerial job and even choose unelected people as spin doctors, advisors etc so I fail to see your point.

" while the punters get to choose a few folk to sit in a second chamber and do... what? Sounds very democratic."

I guess their powers would have to be hammered out - but essentially they would do the same thing that mps currently do and maybe be able to veto government actions (for example iraq) - thought to be honest im not sure how practical that would be. Sounds ok in theory though, it worked with the house of lords.
IF Convenor

I thought you were looking to improve the system not just make it different but equally as bad or actually worse.
Avatar

"I thought you were looking to improve the system not just make it different but equally as bad or actually worse."


I think it would be an improvement to the system - elected representatives that actually represent the local communities that elect them instead of offering blind loyalty to a political party is certainly a step in the right direction - I dont see how it can be equally as bad or worse than what we have at the moment.
IF Convenor

The ones with the real power in your system are the party hacks. The representative ones are just for show, window dressing in your mysterious second chamber.
Avatar

"The ones with the real power in your system are the party hacks. The representative ones are just for show, window dressing in your mysterious second chamber."

lol - well I cant think of a way to have local acountable mps/msps with no party loyalty that could form a unified government. So Highlanders Idea there made sense to add it on to form the executive. I'll crack it eventually Cool

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads