Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Scottish independence: The electoral mathematics would look

SystemSystem Posts: 11,710
edited February 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Scottish independence: The electoral mathematics would look less dautnting for the Tories

At GE2010 Labour won 41 of the 59 Scottish seats while the Tories came away with one. So if Scotland gets stripped out of the equation then achieving an overall majority because a much easier task for the blues.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    edited February 2014
    Scottish Subsample

    Edit: Not really relevant but wanted to see if it still sets off the spam-trap.

    On topic: It would make LAB's job harder but it wouldn't be the cataclysm certain thriller writers would have you believe. Still don't understand why neither CON nor LAB have grabbed the role of championing England - there could be serious votes up for someone who seriously addressed the English question
  • Options
    I can't see the Conservative leadership deliberately throwing the referendum - losing would be politically damaging to them personally, while being caught at it would be even worse for them.

    However, Conservative MPs and activists are well aware that losing the vote would help their party, so they're not exactly going to be whole-heartedly committed to the No campaign. Whether this will actually help the Yes campaign is unclear, since visible conservative support for No might alienate many Scottish voters.

    Whoever actually wins, we can probably expect some political conspiracy theorists to spend the next few decades claiming Cameron was trying to lose. If the No campaign suffers any major accidents, they'll blame him for them.
  • Options
    If the Tories wanted to lose the referendum they couldn't really "throw" it, they'd need to come outright and support independence. If the PM came out and said "we think independence is a good idea, vote yes" then yes would win easily (nothing like being told you're not wanted to make independence seem good). Sadly that's never going to happen.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,425
    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2014
    Obviously it would have SOME effect, but I think suggestions Labour would find it impossible to win elections in a Scotland-less UK are way off the mark. It's worth pointing out that, in all the elections between 1997 and 2005, Labour's vote share in Scotland was only a few % ahead of their share in the UK as a whole - it was only in 2010 when Scotland diverged dramatically. It seems to have been forgotten that, traditionally, it was actually Wales that was Labour's biggest heartland, not Scotland, although admittedly Wales seems to have been trending away from them of late.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    edited February 2014
    Danny 565 - Exactly, Labour would have won a majority or most seats in the general elections of 1945, 1950, 1951, 1966, October 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005 even without Scotland. The only elections where the Tories would have won elections they lost with Scotland would have been 1964 where Home would have won (but he would have been ineligible anyway to be PM as ironically he was a Scot and Wilson was English) and Feb 1974 when Heath would have been returned, but had Heath won in 1974 there would have been no Maggie (so perhaps the Scots are ironically responsible for Thatcher too!)

    Here are the details within each election's electoral history
    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/British_Electoral_History_1832.htm

    Better graphs here
    http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/05/will-scotland-leave-england-to-generations-of-tory-rule/
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Inside 'Billionaires Row': London's rotting, derelict mansions worth £350m

    The North London street where billionaires can buy homes, never live in them, let them rot and still make millions":

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005
    DavidL said:

    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.

    It would be a major blow to Britain's standing in the world. The fact that it would make it a bit harder for Labour to win an election would be very cold comfort.
  • Options
    Latest ICM Wisdom Index in which respondees are asked to predict party shares for GE2015 has
    CON 31.1
    LAB 33.4
    LD 15.8
    UKIP 11.7
  • Options
    Freggles said:

    Scottish Subsample

    Edit: Not really relevant but wanted to see if it still sets off the spam-trap.

    On topic: It would make LAB's job harder but it wouldn't be the cataclysm certain thriller writers would have you believe. Still don't understand why neither CON nor LAB have grabbed the role of championing England - there could be serious votes up for someone who seriously addressed the English question

    Because addressing the English question would necessarily neuter the Imperial parliament in Westminster.

  • Options
    smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    edited February 2014
    Still don't understand why neither CON nor LAB have grabbed the role of championing England - there could be serious votes up for someone who seriously addressed the English question

    With Scotland so heavily anti-tory and pro-labour pretty much assures that the Tories cannot get a majority in Westminster even when they dominate all suburban and rural areas of England (as they did in 2010). Not only that but as the 2011 census statistic (32 million consider themselves English only) demonstrates many English no longer consider themselves British either whereas many naturalised immigrants do. For Labour to ideologically "wave the English flag" would cause noteable consternation within their ranks and in BME communities. To a lesser extent I suspect that is also true of the Libdems

    This is highlighted quite well by that dubious piece of left-wing propaganda British Future whose questionably named State Of The Nation Poll demonstrated Labour's predicament by asking these two questions.

    Which of the following if any is closest to how you would feel if you saw an England flag (the St. Georges Cross) on someone home, car shop or pub while England is playing /(on a normal day in brackets) in the World Cup

    An expression of English National Pride:

    Con 68% (66%)
    Lab 50% (42%)
    LD 61% (42%)
    UKIP 80% (80%)

    A worrying expression of English Nationalism

    Con 4% (6%)
    Lab 16% (21%)
    LD 8% (24%)
    UKIP 3% (3%)

    Very few Tory or UKIP supporters are concerned by the presence of the St George's Flag whereas Labour and Libdems have a considerable group who could be concerned,

    As to why Dave has not wrapped himself in the flag well firstly they are the Unionist Party so clearly that wouldn't fit well. Not only that but it would encourage Scottish Independence and there is no question that independence does have a considerable overhead (e.g. National Security)for the UK if they leave. Beyond that it would attract all the hackneyed smears from the left which would go completely against what Cameron has attempted with the modernisation project. It would also encourage further Euroscepticism (given that the impression is Scotland is less Euroscpetic than other parts of the country) and we know what the EU does to the Tories.


  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Latest ICM Wisdom Index in which respondees are asked to predict party shares for GE2015 has
    CON 31.1
    LAB 33.4
    LD 15.8
    UKIP 11.7

    Looks very good. I'd put Tories one point higher and Labour one lower.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,014

    Still don't understand why neither CON nor LAB have grabbed the role of championing England - there could be serious votes up for someone who seriously addressed the English question

    With Scotland so heavily anti-tory and pro-labour pretty much assures that the Tories cannot get a majority in Westminster even when they dominate all suburban and rural areas of England (as they did in 2010). Not only that but as the 2011 census statistic (32 million consider themselves English only) demonstrates many English no longer consider themselves British either whereas many naturalised immigrants do. For Labour to ideologically "wave the English flag" would cause noteable consternation within their ranks and in BME communities. To a lesser extent I suspect that is also true of the Libdems

    This is highlighted quite well by that dubious piece of left-wing propaganda British Future whose questionably named State Of The Nation Poll demonstrated Labour's predicament by asking these two questions.

    Which of the following if any is closest to how you would feel if you saw an England flag (the St. Georges Cross) on someone home, car shop or pub while England is playing /(on a normal day in brackets) in the World Cup

    An expression of English National Pride:

    Con 68% (66%)
    Lab 50% (42%)
    LD 61% (42%)
    UKIP 80% (80%)

    A worrying expression of English Nationalism

    Con 4% (6%)
    Lab 16% (21%)
    LD 8% (24%)
    UKIP 3% (3%)

    Very few Tory or UKIP supporters are concerned by the presence of the St George's Flag whereas Labour and Libdems have a considerable group who could be concerned,

    As to why Dave has not wrapped himself in the flag well firstly they are the Unionist Party so clearly that wouldn't fit well. Not only that but it would encourage Scottish Independence and there is no question that independence does have a considerable overhead (e.g. National Security)for the UK if they leave. Beyond that it would attract all the hackneyed smears from the left which would go completely against what Cameron has attempted with the modernisation project. It would also encourage further Euroscepticism (given that the impression is Scotland is less Euroscpetic than other parts of the country) and we know what the EU does to the Tories.


    Drive from Romford to Dagenham or get the tube into London from Elm Park and you would think England are playing in the World Cup Final every day!
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    Latest ICM Wisdom Index in which respondees are asked to predict party shares for GE2015 has
    CON 31.1
    LAB 33.4
    LD 15.8
    UKIP 11.7

    Looks very good. I'd put Tories one point higher and Labour one lower.
    Impressively sensible, isn't it? Are voters smart, or do their stupids cancel out?
  • Options
    FPT:
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    or is it only the SNP view that matters?

    So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
    The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
    He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.
    No, the post you replied to was
    From this story

    "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611596/Back-the-Union-to-keep-the-pound-says-Ed-Balls.html

    As I said.

    Keep pushing Balls as an economic wise man as I'm quite sure that won't come back to haunt you. Repeatedly.

    :)
    As I said....anything but the topic of the thread.....

    SNP only in negotiations, or others too?
    You will (as so often) find the answer in the White Paper, in the "Becoming independent - the transition" section. And to save you the trouble:

    "A Yes vote will require work to be undertaken within the Scottish Government, drawing on external advice and expertise from within civic society and our academic and business communities.

    The negotiating team will be led by the First Minister, and the process will include figures from across Scottish public life and Scotland's other political parties. During the transition period the Government will seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament to extend its sitting days to ensure full democratic scrutiny of the process and to provide adequate time for the necessary legislation to be passed. "
    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/5



    Carnyx, You have burst his/her bubble, in his/her twisted mind it would have been only Alex Salmond allowed to negotiate.
    Malcolm, I asked a question, the "twisted mind" that advocated the exclusion of the Tories, Lab & Lib Dems was yours!
  • Options
    New post on ICM
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.

    It would be a major blow to Britain's standing in the world. The fact that it would make it a bit harder for Labour to win an election would be very cold comfort.
    Nowhere near as big a blow as the collapse of the Soviet Union was to Russia's (funnily enough, still on the Security Council) nor to Spain's with the loss of Catalonia - which is why Spain will pay VERY close attention to a EU negotiations.

    If Scotland decides to separate both countries will continue to make their way in the world - Labour's recession caused nearly as big a fall in UK GDP as the secession of Scotland would, yet mysteriously we are still here.....
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,139

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    or is it only the SNP view that matters?

    So sorry, I didn't realise you were still enjoying being Balls mouthpiece so much.
    The story you eagerly keep pushing is "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"
    He'll be delighted that scottish tories now hang on his every word and think him a real economic sage.
    No, the post you replied to was
    From this story

    "Back the Union to keep the pound, says Ed Balls"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611596/Back-the-Union-to-keep-the-pound-says-Ed-Balls.html

    As I said.

    Keep pushing Balls as an economic wise man as I'm quite sure that won't come back to haunt you. Repeatedly.

    :)
    As I said....anything but the topic of the thread.....

    SNP only in negotiations, or others too?
    You will (as so often) find the answer in the White Paper, in the "Becoming independent - the transition" section. And to save you the trouble:

    "A Yes vote will require work to be undertaken within the Scottish Government, drawing on external advice and expertise from within civic society and our academic and business communities.

    The negotiating team will be led by the First Minister, and the process will include figures from across Scottish public life and Scotland's other political parties. During the transition period the Government will seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament to extend its sitting days to ensure full democratic scrutiny of the process and to provide adequate time for the necessary legislation to be passed. "
    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/5



    Carnyx, You have burst his/her bubble, in his/her twisted mind it would have been only Alex Salmond allowed to negotiate.
    Malcolm, I asked a question, the "twisted mind" that advocated the exclusion of the Tories, Lab & Lib Dems was yours!
    LOL, don't take it too serious, however I did tell you that SNP would be inclusive unlike their rivals if the boot was on the other foot. It is that blind hatred that is certain to mean Labour and the Tories fail and Scotland becomes independent.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,139

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.

    It would be a major blow to Britain's standing in the world. The fact that it would make it a bit harder for Labour to win an election would be very cold comfort.
    Nowhere near as big a blow as the collapse of the Soviet Union was to Russia's (funnily enough, still on the Security Council) nor to Spain's with the loss of Catalonia - which is why Spain will pay VERY close attention to a EU negotiations.

    If Scotland decides to separate both countries will continue to make their way in the world - Labour's recession caused nearly as big a fall in UK GDP as the secession of Scotland would, yet mysteriously we are still here.....
    It will be a huge blow to the fragile Westminster ego, they will be devastated and will mean the rest of Europe will have a good laugh at their expense. Major powers already know they are insignificant , re recent Chinese and Russian opinions on the feeble UK.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,004
    DavidL said:

    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.

    And even more of the coastline and seas, as I understand it. Yet note the almost complete lack of interest in defending those waters and indeed lands (including in the economic and emergency/disaster/rescue sense). It does rather beg the question of how worried the London government really are about Scotland. Likewise the impact of withdrawing most of the armed forces from Scotland, except the nukes and a few Army barracks and the odd airfield, is now at such a level that even the initial proposals in the Independence White Paper, which are explicitly interim plans, would be an immediate and considerable improvement, with a Nimrod replacement for a start doing something about maritime patrol aircraft.

    There is certainly an element of cognitive dissonance somewhere, methinks. I wonder how much of this is due to perception and the fact that London is on the extreme fringes of the UK, geographically speaking - it's (more or less) no further from Beachy Head than Lerwick in the Shetlands is from Muckle Flugga (and far closer to the edge of the exclusive economic zone).

  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Gosh we Scots are getting more than our fair share of attention today but since the alternative is discussing the disintegrating Conservative party in Parliament I can't say I am too disappointed.

    I think the tory leadership support for the Union is strong and genuine. The fact that it is despite the outcome being so much to their tactical advantage is to their credit and makes it all the more admirable.

    Of course there is no point in pretending that only Scotland would be diminished into parochial irrelevance by independence. The UK might only lose 8% of its population but it would lose 1/3 of its land. Not how any PM would want to be remembered I would think.

    It would be a major blow to Britain's standing in the world. The fact that it would make it a bit harder for Labour to win an election would be very cold comfort.
    Nowhere near as big a blow as the collapse of the Soviet Union was to Russia's (funnily enough, still on the Security Council) nor to Spain's with the loss of Catalonia - which is why Spain will pay VERY close attention to a EU negotiations.

    If Scotland decides to separate both countries will continue to make their way in the world - Labour's recession caused nearly as big a fall in UK GDP as the secession of Scotland would, yet mysteriously we are still here.....
    It will be a huge blow to the fragile Westminster ego, they will be devastated and will mean the rest of Europe will have a good laugh at their expense. Major powers already know they are insignificant , re recent Chinese and Russian opinions on the feeble UK.
    Malcolm, it will have little effect on rUKs place in the world. Westminster politicians will shrug their shoulders and then like Lloyd George, David Cameron will say that if the Scots want to go their own way as Irish did, good luck to them and he will then get on with running Greater England. However the SNP will quickly learn that the price will be a swift and hard move to the economic right though thankfully people like John Swinney are Tartan Tories and will have no difficulty delivering the brand of capitalism the IMF etc will demand in order to enable the Scottish Groat to maintain some stability against major currencies like the Pound, Dollar and Euro. I don't expect Scotland to be allowed to use the Pound as the SNP pretend. The English electorate will not stomach it once we have declared Independence.
  • Options
    They will still send MPs to Westminster in 2015 though, right? Regardless of referendum result
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Time to send George/Dave on lots of trips north?

    If we could somehow get the PB Tories inept spin for 'better together' to a large scottish audience that would do almost as well.

    LOL
  • Options
    The Conservatives also have just 8 of the 40 Welsh seats, so kicking them out of the Union would also be beneficial to their prospects. The logic of this leads to English independence from the UK.

    However, even that isn't enough, as the perverse 2005 general election result showed, where Labour "won" England with fewer votes than the Conservatives. This sort of thinking would encourage the Tories to subdivide England, abandoning the further reaches of the north to Labour, fighting a long-term war of insurgency in Yorkshire and battling in Mercia from the redoubt of Greater Middlesex...
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited February 2014
    [test - deleted]
This discussion has been closed.