I saw the reference to the LibDems taking my home seat Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The popular SNP MSP Gail Ross is standing down to spend more time with her daughter and she is being replaced as candidate by Maree Todd the SNP list MSP for Highlands and Islands. Maree Todd is not from the constituency as she is an Ullapool girl and she has had nothing like Gail Ross' profile. The LibDem candidate, wee Molly is being punted non-stop and I think I have had in excess of 10 election leaflets dressed up as LibDem constituency news etc over the past few months and begging letters for support too. I think she could just take the seat from the SNP. Between 2011 and 2016 the SNP majority halved and the LibDems have over 8000 SCon/SLAB voters to persuade to lend them a constituency vote to oust the SNP. Definitely one to watch.
"Caithness, Sutherland and Ross" - where the men must be tough, and the sheep must be fast.
Salmond is standing for a constituency seat in the NE, I gather, as an exception to the list-only rule.
Even if it does produce a wodge of pro-Indy Alba MSPs, I can't see them being willing to support Sturgeon in office, so it might help Sindy but not the SNP.
Labour and the Tories ought to be able to play this as "Don't vote for this shambles", but I'm not sure their dynamics are sufficient.
According to his own statement the Alba Party is list only. Salmond is probably on the North East List which is where the confusion may stem from.
So, Labour well and truly in play at a time of almost zero visibility for them, and of peak vaccine triumph for a Tory government who's main policy of Brexit is looking vindicated to all but the ever diminishing ranks of the cognescenti.
Starmer will be feeling like the cat with the cream.
Well the big difference is always the Labour score....there used to be the golden rule, take the lowest Labour score among a range of polls.
Besides which, Labour is now structurally disadvantaged when contesting general elections. In 2005 Tony Blair outpolled Michael Howard by 2.8% and won a comfortable Parliamentary majority. By 2017 Theresa May only beat Jeremy Corbyn by 2.4% and still finished more than 50 seats ahead of Labour. The implosion of the Liberal Democrats, then of the Scottish Labour Party and finally of the Red Wall (with what's left of Labour's support now largely stacked up in the big cities or too thinly spread elsewhere to get out of second place,) has really crippled them.
Yes, I think the structural outlook for Labour is bleak. If you look at the "big themes" of politics that tend to dominate politics and influence votes (religion, class etc), they tend to influence voting for several decades. We are hardly in to the start of the trend where views on culture are the determinant factor of voting. It's hard to see Labour breaking out of the cities. The possible exception might be if professional graduates moved out of cities and into more rural / suburban areas but that is not guaranteed and will take time.
There aren't enough of them, and once out of the habitat it is easier to see how ludicrous and out of touch the party membership/'Tories are scum' brigade really are. Labour's greatest support is in enclaves with deep inconsistencies between their viewpoints. While of course they have large support across the country both from their declining (and entirely worthy of respect) traditional base and from enclave members, nonetheless throughout rural and small town England they function as the alternative Liberal Democrats - a very decent number of votes but approximately zero seats.
Only the Tories have genuine 'spectrum' support in sufficient numbers to win enough middling seats from voters who have things in common with each other.
Many on the left, whether in the UK or the US, suffer from the same delusion namely they think that, as professional graduate types, (1) only they know what is right and (2) that everyone else not only is less important but also is too stupid to notice their hypocrisy on a wide range of issues. They epitomise Socrates' statement in his trial that "the most stupid people in the world are those who think they know everything"
Well you guys seem to know not just what you think but what everyone else thinks too. I wonder what Socrates would have made of that.
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Age related data scaled to 100K population per age group
I'm assuming that the slowdown in the decline in case rate amongst the 15-64's is related to the schools? Little snots mixing in their petri dishes and bringing the Plague back home, plus older kids' results directly feeding into the 15-44 group.
Isn't that just a case in point that predictions of extremely efficient tactical voting are always overdone?
If they got roughly 1 in 8 of the yes list votes it would be 8 list seats , 1 in 2 would give them 24 list seats
You going to stand Malcolm?
I can see Alba be rather more pro business and business friendly than the SNP and that would seem to suit you well. Sturgeon's march to the centre left has been a strategic masterstroke in that she has replaced the Labour party but Salmond was much more centrist in his views which caused the Tories more of an issue.
Scotland needs independence like a hole in the head right now but an independence led by Sturgeon and her cabal of economic illiterates would give England a significant refugee problem.
It's a high-risk option (and wouldn't happen in time for May, obviously) but the UK Government could simply amend the Scotland Act 1998 by simple majority if the MMS is deemed to be unrepresentative and subject to gaming.
It was last amended in 2016 under David Cameron.
David Cameron's Scotland Act 2016 was as a result of SindyRef 1.
Its key provisions being:
63A Permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
(1) The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.
and
2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add— “(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
It's a high-risk option (and wouldn't happen in time for May, obviously) but the UK Government could simply amend the Scotland Act 1998 by simple majority if the MMS is deemed to be unrepresentative and subject to gaming.
It was last amended in 2016 under David Cameron.
According to the logic articulated by Priti Patel they should change it to FPTP.
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
No it doesn't, Boris will correctly refuse a legal indyref2 regardless. Now the Unionist parties are also likely to get over 50% of the vote combined even if not a majority of seats combined that still gives Boris the cover he needs when he makes that refusal.
You are also making the mistake thinking Alba will win lots of votes and list seats and the SNP and Greens will lose barely any on the list.
More likely Alba only wins a few votes and barely any list seats (most SNP voters dislike Salmond now) but they win enough votes still to cost the SNP and Greens list seats
I need information if I'm to know whether what Alex Salmond says has any plausibility. I know that 73 SMPs are elected in constituencies, 56 by regions (7 each in each of 8 regions). But what explains why the SNP has done so much better in constituencies than in the regional votes?
The constituencies are elected by FPTP, so the vote split of roughly SNP 45%, Tory 20%, Labour 20%, results in a huge landslide for the SNP, last time of 59-14.
The regional seats are elected by d'Hondt, which is the system we once used, in the distant carefree past when we were members of the EU, for the elections to the European Parliament. However, the crucial wrinkle is that the constituency seats won in that region are taken into account for the d'Hondt calculation.
So, for example, in Glasgow the SNP won all nine constituency seats. Consequently a list seat would be their tenth, and so we divide their list vote by ten to give a vote of 11,110.
The seventh Glasgow regional seat was therefore won by the Tories, it was their second, so was won with 14,766 (their list vote divided by two).
If all the SNP list votes went to Alba, then Alba would win four list seats, because they would have no constituency seats as part of the calculation. Labour would lose two seats, the Tories one and the Greens one.
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
No it doesn't, Boris will correctly refuse a legal indyref2 regardless. Now the Unionist parties are also likely to get over 50% of the vote combined even if not a majority of seats combined that still gives Boris the cover he needs when he makes that refusal.
You are also making the mistake thinking Alba will win lots of votes and list seats and the SNP and Greens will lose barely any on the list.
More likely Alba only wins a few votes and barely any list seats (most SNP voters dislike Salmond now) but they win enough votes still to cost the SNP and Greens list seats
I saw the reference to the LibDems taking my home seat Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The popular SNP MSP Gail Ross is standing down to spend more time with her daughter and she is being replaced as candidate by Maree Todd the SNP list MSP for Highlands and Islands. Maree Todd is not from the constituency as she is an Ullapool girl and she has had nothing like Gail Ross' profile. The LibDem candidate, wee Molly is being punted non-stop and I think I have had in excess of 10 election leaflets dressed up as LibDem constituency news etc over the past few months and begging letters for support too. I think she could just take the seat from the SNP. Between 2011 and 2016 the SNP majority halved and the LibDems have over 8000 SCon/SLAB voters to persuade to lend them a constituency vote to oust the SNP. Definitely one to watch.
"Caithness, Sutherland and Ross" - where the men must be tough, and the sheep must be fast.
It's a high-risk option (and wouldn't happen in time for May, obviously) but the UK Government could simply amend the Scotland Act 1998 by simple majority if the MMS is deemed to be unrepresentative and subject to gaming.
It was last amended in 2016 under David Cameron.
Maybe, but what to?
If you choose FPTP the SNP will currently win huge majorities, and, under the Westminster precedent, a huge mandate for a second referendum.
Patel has kiboshed a move to STV by erroneously claiming the 2011 referendum was against all transferable vote systems.
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Don't take it that way. It's just we have different value systems. For me, a direct bet on here, if it's on something being traded in the market, has to offer both sides a better price than they could otherwise get.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
Age related data scaled to 100K population per age group
I'm assuming that the slowdown in the decline in case rate amongst the 15-64's is related to the schools? Little snots mixing in their petri dishes and bringing the Plague back home, plus older kids' results directly feeding into the 15-44 group.
That is one theory. I tend to agree with it.
Many people forecast an increase in R as a result of the schools going back. Being surprised when it does seems strange.
I think what has happened is that the schools going back has balanced with the effect of the lockdown and the vaccines to this point.
I rather think that further progress will be vaccine dependent.
The other idea is that all the lateral tests are doing is finding asymptotic cases and that all the cases found in the older groups that have caused the "elbow" are secondary testing - Mum and Dad get a PCR test because little Bill got a positive....
On the upside the admissions are still heading down -
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
Wow.
Not going to happen but an SNP majority on constituency seats, combined with the Alba party taking regional seats away from the unionists ... That really would be remarkable.
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
Wow.
Not going to happen but an SNP majority on constituency seats, combined with the Alba party taking regional seats away from the unionists ... That really would be remarkable.
If only to see HYFUD self combust!
Boris would still correctly refuse indyref2 anyway, especially as Unionist parties will still likely have a majority of votes.
However what Philip Thompson, a non Tory, non Unionist, little Englander libertarian, thinks would be remarkable is rather different to what I would think would be remarkable
I saw the reference to the LibDems taking my home seat Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The popular SNP MSP Gail Ross is standing down to spend more time with her daughter and she is being replaced as candidate by Maree Todd the SNP list MSP for Highlands and Islands. Maree Todd is not from the constituency as she is an Ullapool girl and she has had nothing like Gail Ross' profile. The LibDem candidate, wee Molly is being punted non-stop and I think I have had in excess of 10 election leaflets dressed up as LibDem constituency news etc over the past few months and begging letters for support too. I think she could just take the seat from the SNP. Between 2011 and 2016 the SNP majority halved and the LibDems have over 8000 SCon/SLAB voters to persuade to lend them a constituency vote to oust the SNP. Definitely one to watch.
"Caithness, Sutherland and Ross" - where the men must be tough, and the sheep must be fast.
Isn't that Wales?
Fitting for MANY spots across the far-flung British Empire, from Fair Isle to the Falklands.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, devomax would just make that even clearer. England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs. What is needed is an English Parliament or at least regional assemblies
It's a high-risk option (and wouldn't happen in time for May, obviously) but the UK Government could simply amend the Scotland Act 1998 by simple majority if the MMS is deemed to be unrepresentative and subject to gaming.
It was last amended in 2016 under David Cameron.
Maybe, but what to?
If you choose FPTP the SNP will currently win huge majorities, and, under the Westminster precedent, a huge mandate for a second referendum.
Patel has kiboshed a move to STV by erroneously claiming the 2011 referendum was against all transferable vote systems.
New data suggests strong protection for 99% after one vaccine dose
A single dose of the Pfizer gave strong protection to 99% people in a new study, it has been revealed.
The figure applies to 237 health workers who formed part of research carried out by Sheffield and Oxford Universities. Results of the PITCH study have been presented as a vindication of the policy to delay second doses so as to provide protection to as many higher-risk groups as possible by providing more first jabs.
The research also concluded that people who had previously been infected with COVID-19 infections had six times the immune response to one dose of the Pfizer jab than those who had not had the virus.
Health Minister Lord Bethell said: "These findings from the PITCH study are crucial to increasing our understanding of the immune response to COVID-19 and how the Pfizer vaccine is working to protect people across the UK already.""
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Don't take it that way. It's just we have different value systems. For me, a direct bet on here, if it's on something being traded in the market, has to offer both sides a better price than they could otherwise get.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
No, a direct bet on here amongst other things gives people self-satisfaction, it isn't about money. If its about money then go to a bookies. For you to stick your nose in and insult people for a bet you weren't a party to is rude.
HYUFD never objected to the terms of our bet, which was honoured in full. He set the terms, so why would he?
For Hartlepool I'll be happy to do a bet at evens if you want? I think Labour will win, happy to do a tenner at evens if you want?
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes would be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
How long will it be, before someone connects the dots, and concludes that the whole Sturgeon-Salmond fish-feud, is actually a CONSPIRACY between the two?
A conspiracy designed to boost voter interest AND maximize the potential nationalist vote, all in the interest of furthering the cause of Scottish independence.
I saw the reference to the LibDems taking my home seat Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The popular SNP MSP Gail Ross is standing down to spend more time with her daughter and she is being replaced as candidate by Maree Todd the SNP list MSP for Highlands and Islands. Maree Todd is not from the constituency as she is an Ullapool girl and she has had nothing like Gail Ross' profile. The LibDem candidate, wee Molly is being punted non-stop and I think I have had in excess of 10 election leaflets dressed up as LibDem constituency news etc over the past few months and begging letters for support too. I think she could just take the seat from the SNP. Between 2011 and 2016 the SNP majority halved and the LibDems have over 8000 SCon/SLAB voters to persuade to lend them a constituency vote to oust the SNP. Definitely one to watch.
"Caithness, Sutherland and Ross" - where the men must be tough, and the sheep must be fast.
Isn't that Wales?
OK, since we live in times where apologising for past misdemeanours is the thing, now would be a good time as any. In the mid 1980s I attended an FA Cup tie between Bromsgrove Rovers and Newport County. And, to my eternal shame, I joined in the chanting that suggested the Newport players and their supporters were, erm, over-fond of sheep. I would like to apologise for any offence caused.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
Age related data scaled to 100K population per age group
I'm assuming that the slowdown in the decline in case rate amongst the 15-64's is related to the schools? Little snots mixing in their petri dishes and bringing the Plague back home, plus older kids' results directly feeding into the 15-44 group.
That is one theory. I tend to agree with it.
Many people forecast an increase in R as a result of the schools going back. Being surprised when it does seems strange.
I think what has happened is that the schools going back has balanced with the effect of the lockdown and the vaccines to this point.
I rather think that further progress will be vaccine dependent.
The other idea is that all the lateral tests are doing is finding asymptotic cases and that all the cases found in the older groups that have caused the "elbow" are secondary testing - Mum and Dad get a PCR test because little Bill got a positive....
On the upside the admissions are still heading down -
Given the substantial slowdown in first dose vaccination coverage over the next few weeks, we shall soon find out if some of the noises that the Government and its advisers have made about worrying less about R and case numbers as this thing progresses are in any way meaningful. The obvious concern is that cases and R may trickle further upwards and they then panic flap and extend the lockdown for another two or three months, whilst we wait and wait and wait for all the vaccinations to be completed.
Hopefully they won't, but I don't trust the Government over the unlocking plan and will only believe that any of these steps are going to happen when they actually do.
That’s my vote sorted. SNP for constituency. Personal vote for Kenny Gibson. Alba on list. Voted Chris McEleny for list selection, so delighted to still be able to vote for him, instead of the woke pushed to the top of the list after receiving about 4% of the votes.
Message for HYFUD. Last time I voted SNP 1 and 2. List vote was wasted. This time I hope to have helped select an additional independence MSP, rather than letting a unionist in.
This is bad news for the Scottish Greens, surely?
And unionists, having a constituency specialist and a list specialist that are two different parties would allow for independence voters to win a huge majority in Holyrood with well under 50% of the vote.
And Boris will just say "under 50% of the vote" - and carry on regardless. With a Royal Commission set to examine so many parameters it will be punted into the elephant grass.
So you're saying BJ would offer a ref if the indy vote is over 50%? Hold the front page!
What's that you say, BJ would be even more frit if the indy vote was over 50%? Oh well..
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
No it doesn't, Boris will correctly refuse a legal indyref2 regardless. Now the Unionist parties are also likely to get over 50% of the vote combined even if not a majority of seats combined that still gives Boris the cover he needs when he makes that refusal.
You are also making the mistake thinking Alba will win lots of votes and list seats and the SNP and Greens will lose barely any on the list.
More likely Alba only wins a few votes and barely any list seats (most SNP voters dislike Salmond now) but they win enough votes still to cost the SNP and Greens list seats
Just come back after 3 miles of deliveries. These leaflets have a funny tinge compared to the old ones I used to deliver. Already bantz on the doorstep - "have you got Salmond's latest as well?". A beautiful afternoon to be out electioneering 😎 https://twitter.com/ianincyaak/status/1375493726693363713?s=19
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
IF Warwickshire achieves independence, surely Wokeshire The Freestate (WTF for short) won't be far behind . . .
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
I don't think it worked out well for us over Brexit.
I don't think it would work well for Scottish Independence either.
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
Wow.
Not going to happen but an SNP majority on constituency seats, combined with the Alba party taking regional seats away from the unionists ... That really would be remarkable.
If only to see HYFUD self combust!
Boris would still correctly refuse indyref2 anyway, especially as Unionist parties will still likely have a majority of votes.
However what Philip Thompson, a non Tory, non Unionist, little Englander libertarian, thinks would be remarkable is rather different to what I would think would be remarkable
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
I think this makes winning constituency seats super important for the Unionist parties. It's the only way to prevent the super-majority for Independence.
It's a big ask though. There are seven seats the SNP could gain on a swing of less than 2%. Winning all of them would give the SNP a majority in constituency seats alone. Only one that they could lose on the same swing.
Wow.
Not going to happen but an SNP majority on constituency seats, combined with the Alba party taking regional seats away from the unionists ... That really would be remarkable.
If only to see HYFUD self combust!
Boris would still correctly refuse indyref2 anyway, especially as Unionist parties will still likely have a majority of votes.
However what Philip Thompson, a non Tory, non Unionist, little Englander libertarian, thinks would be remarkable is rather different to what I would think would be remarkable
Someone’s getting twitchy!
No, just I am an ideological Unionist, Philip Thompson is an ideological Little Englander who wants to break up the Union
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Don't take it that way. It's just we have different value systems. For me, a direct bet on here, if it's on something being traded in the market, has to offer both sides a better price than they could otherwise get.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
No, a direct bet on here amongst other things gives people self-satisfaction, it isn't about money. If its about money then go to a bookies. For you to stick your nose in and insult people for a bet you weren't a party to is rude.
HYUFD never objected to the terms of our bet, which was honoured in full. He set the terms, so why would he?
For Hartlepool I'll be happy to do a bet at evens if you want? I think Labour will win, happy to do a tenner at evens if you want?
Ok. To site funds. That's legging me over slightly (with betfair at 1.93) but I don't mind in this case because it's all being done on the level rather than off the back of a lorry.
I saw the reference to the LibDems taking my home seat Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. The popular SNP MSP Gail Ross is standing down to spend more time with her daughter and she is being replaced as candidate by Maree Todd the SNP list MSP for Highlands and Islands. Maree Todd is not from the constituency as she is an Ullapool girl and she has had nothing like Gail Ross' profile. The LibDem candidate, wee Molly is being punted non-stop and I think I have had in excess of 10 election leaflets dressed up as LibDem constituency news etc over the past few months and begging letters for support too. I think she could just take the seat from the SNP. Between 2011 and 2016 the SNP majority halved and the LibDems have over 8000 SCon/SLAB voters to persuade to lend them a constituency vote to oust the SNP. Definitely one to watch.
"Caithness, Sutherland and Ross" - where the men must be tough, and the sheep must be fast.
Isn't that Wales?
OK, since we live in times where apologising for past misdemeanours is the thing, now would be a good time as any. In the mid 1980s I attended an FA Cup tie between Bromsgrove Rovers and Newport County. And, to my eternal shame, I joined in the chanting that suggested the Newport players and their supporters were, erm, over-fond of sheep. I would like to apologise for any offence caused.
@malcolmg - will you be voting SNP-Alba or just Alba on the list?
My current intention is just ALBA on the list but I may hold my nose but not keen to give those chancers my vote, independence is big thing for me though. @tlg86
So, Labour well and truly in play at a time of almost zero visibility for them, and of peak vaccine triumph for a Tory government who's main policy of Brexit is looking vindicated to all but the ever diminishing ranks of the cognescenti.
Starmer will be feeling like the cat with the cream.
Well the big difference is always the Labour score....there used to be the golden rule, take the lowest Labour score among a range of polls.
Besides which, Labour is now structurally disadvantaged when contesting general elections. In 2005 Tony Blair outpolled Michael Howard by 2.8% and won a comfortable Parliamentary majority. By 2017 Theresa May only beat Jeremy Corbyn by 2.4% and still finished more than 50 seats ahead of Labour. The implosion of the Liberal Democrats, then of the Scottish Labour Party and finally of the Red Wall (with what's left of Labour's support now largely stacked up in the big cities or too thinly spread elsewhere to get out of second place,) has really crippled them.
Yes, I think the structural outlook for Labour is bleak. If you look at the "big themes" of politics that tend to dominate politics and influence votes (religion, class etc), they tend to influence voting for several decades. We are hardly in to the start of the trend where views on culture are the determinant factor of voting. It's hard to see Labour breaking out of the cities. The possible exception might be if professional graduates moved out of cities and into more rural / suburban areas but that is not guaranteed and will take time.
There aren't enough of them, and once out of the habitat it is easier to see how ludicrous and out of touch the party membership/'Tories are scum' brigade really are. Labour's greatest support is in enclaves with deep inconsistencies between their viewpoints. While of course they have large support across the country both from their declining (and entirely worthy of respect) traditional base and from enclave members, nonetheless throughout rural and small town England they function as the alternative Liberal Democrats - a very decent number of votes but approximately zero seats.
Only the Tories have genuine 'spectrum' support in sufficient numbers to win enough middling seats from voters who have things in common with each other.
Many on the left, whether in the UK or the US, suffer from the same delusion namely they think that, as professional graduate types, (1) only they know what is right and (2) that everyone else not only is less important but also is too stupid to notice their hypocrisy on a wide range of issues. They epitomise Socrates' statement in his trial that "the most stupid people in the world are those who think they know everything"
Well you guys seem to know not just what you think but what everyone else thinks too. I wonder what Socrates would have made of that.
A compelling and persuasive point, but 'seem' is a little overworked and contains not a single fact or argument.
Aye. Section 4. It changed "Secretary of State" to "Scottish Ministers":
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by order make any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as to— (a) the conduct of elections for membership of the Parliament, (b) the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities, and (c) the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.
Furthermore section 11 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to change the voting system with a super-majority of 2/3 of MSPs.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
Ireland looks like it is teeing up its fourth wave. They've had a modest increase in cases recently, are falling behind other EU countries on vaccination numbers, and are carrying on with school reopening.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
A sustainable settlement isn't possible. Three reasons:
1. Federalism won't happen. Nobody in England wants umpteen regional parliaments and the Unionist parties won't create a single English Parliament because they think it will be too powerful and will blow up the Union (and also because they're extremely selfish and so won't countenance cutting the office of Prime Minister in two.) 2. Absent federalism the West Lothian question cannot be resolved, therefore the constitution remains inherently asymmetric and unfair. Members of Parliament, and by extension their voters, have different rights according to where they come from. 3. In any event, nearly half of Scotland already wants to leave. That's no foundation on which to build a sustainable relationship.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
The idea they would forever vote in antagonist nationalist governments without at some point having enough support to go Indy, or never see Sindy support drop at some point, seems flawed to me. Certainly short to medium term that might be the case, if Sindy is not achieved, but at some point either they'll get enough support for Indy, or enthusiasm would wane - permament 45-55 Sindy support is not a law of nature.
So, Labour well and truly in play at a time of almost zero visibility for them, and of peak vaccine triumph for a Tory government who's main policy of Brexit is looking vindicated to all but the ever diminishing ranks of the cognescenti.
Starmer will be feeling like the cat with the cream.
Well the big difference is always the Labour score....there used to be the golden rule, take the lowest Labour score among a range of polls.
Besides which, Labour is now structurally disadvantaged when contesting general elections. In 2005 Tony Blair outpolled Michael Howard by 2.8% and won a comfortable Parliamentary majority. By 2017 Theresa May only beat Jeremy Corbyn by 2.4% and still finished more than 50 seats ahead of Labour. The implosion of the Liberal Democrats, then of the Scottish Labour Party and finally of the Red Wall (with what's left of Labour's support now largely stacked up in the big cities or too thinly spread elsewhere to get out of second place,) has really crippled them.
Yes, I think the structural outlook for Labour is bleak. If you look at the "big themes" of politics that tend to dominate politics and influence votes (religion, class etc), they tend to influence voting for several decades. We are hardly in to the start of the trend where views on culture are the determinant factor of voting. It's hard to see Labour breaking out of the cities. The possible exception might be if professional graduates moved out of cities and into more rural / suburban areas but that is not guaranteed and will take time.
There aren't enough of them, and once out of the habitat it is easier to see how ludicrous and out of touch the party membership/'Tories are scum' brigade really are. Labour's greatest support is in enclaves with deep inconsistencies between their viewpoints. While of course they have large support across the country both from their declining (and entirely worthy of respect) traditional base and from enclave members, nonetheless throughout rural and small town England they function as the alternative Liberal Democrats - a very decent number of votes but approximately zero seats.
Only the Tories have genuine 'spectrum' support in sufficient numbers to win enough middling seats from voters who have things in common with each other.
Many on the left, whether in the UK or the US, suffer from the same delusion namely they think that, as professional graduate types, (1) only they know what is right and (2) that everyone else not only is less important but also is too stupid to notice their hypocrisy on a wide range of issues. They epitomise Socrates' statement in his trial that "the most stupid people in the world are those who think they know everything"
Well you guys seem to know not just what you think but what everyone else thinks too. I wonder what Socrates would have made of that.
A compelling and persuasive point, but 'seem' is a little overworked and contains not a single fact or argument.
Ed was telling us the inner thoughts of the typical professional left wing graduate. A skill he shares with you.
I suppose it does make things a lot more interesting for the next GE in Scotland as well. Suspect Dougie Ross for instance could be vulnerable if Angus Robertson returns.
Except surely he'll be off to Holyrood - followed by yet another Westminster by-election later this year?
He plans to keep his Westminster job and his refereeing job as well as Holyrood, but too scared to try for a constituency , he is going for list seat.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
A sustainable settlement isn't possible. Three reasons:
1. Federalism won't happen. Nobody in England wants umpteen regional parliaments and the Unionist parties won't create a single English Parliament because they think it will be too powerful and will blow up the Union (and also because they're extremely selfish and so won't countenance cutting the office of Prime Minister in two.) 2. Absent federalism the West Lothian question cannot be resolved, therefore the constitution remains inherently asymmetric and unfair. Members of Parliament, and by extension their voters, have different rights according to where they come from. 3. In any event, nearly half of Scotland already wants to leave. That's no foundation on which to build a sustainable relationship.
So what do you suggest?
We only have two options: build a sustainable settlement or await the inevitable.
That's a pretty wild set of potential effects, and I'd have thought 6% isn't too high a bar.
Almost exclusively from the Unionist parties.
And again why Galloway's rabble are hurting the Unionist cause too, because they haven't the slighest chance of getting 6%
Not at all, plenty of Greens MSPs on the list could lose their seats thanks to Alba, as could SNP lists MSPs in the Borders.
If Alba do not gain 5%+ of the vote they will also not win any list seats themselves, thus just splitting the Nationalist list vote without getting any MSPs
Says the person who thinks Galloway's party is going to win List seats. 🙄
Also ignoring the fact the SNP don't win many List seats. What percentage vote do you think Alliance for Unity will get? What percentage Alba?
Galloway at least could win a list seat where he is standing, otherwise AfU is far less likely to split the Unionist vote elsewhere than Salmond's new Alba party could split the SNP and Green list vote across Scotland, particularly costing the Greens list seats and also the SNP their list MSPs in the Borders.
If Alba fails to get much more than 5% all they will do is split the Nationalist vote and elect more Unionist MSPs with barely any list MSPs elected themselves bar probably Salmond and 1 or 2 others
Aren't the votes for the list seats transferable, Mr HY? I thought they were. In which case, not so much damage done.
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Don't take it that way. It's just we have different value systems. For me, a direct bet on here, if it's on something being traded in the market, has to offer both sides a better price than they could otherwise get.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
No, a direct bet on here amongst other things gives people self-satisfaction, it isn't about money. If its about money then go to a bookies. For you to stick your nose in and insult people for a bet you weren't a party to is rude.
HYUFD never objected to the terms of our bet, which was honoured in full. He set the terms, so why would he?
For Hartlepool I'll be happy to do a bet at evens if you want? I think Labour will win, happy to do a tenner at evens if you want?
Ok. To site funds. That's legging me over slightly (with betfair at 1.93) but I don't mind in this case because it's all being done on the level rather than off the back of a lorry.
Deal. A tenner to site funds.
A bet I'll be happy to lose but don't expect to lose.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
Plus do not expect a quiet life from Scottish independence, it would be Brexit x10 and rip these islands apart with border posts at Berwick inevitable if Scotland left the UK single market now the UK has a hard border with the EU and rows about who owes what that would go on for years.
The Tories would dominate English politics for years on an English Nationalist ticket to counter the SNP's Scottish Nationalism and ensure no concessions to Sturgeon and Salmond, Nationalism would be resurgent across Britain even more than now
@malcolmg - will you be voting SNP-Alba or just Alba on the list?
My current intention is just ALBA on the list but I may hold my nose but not keen to give those chancers my vote, independence is big thing for me though. @tlg86
That is the brilliant part of the Sturgeon-Salmond "conspiracy".
It gives folks like you (or your opposite numbers who like the other big fish but loath yours) a good reason, to vote for politicos they otherwise won't touch with a barge pole.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
The idea they would forever vote in antagonist nationalist governments without at some point having enough support to go Indy, or never see Sindy support drop at some point, seems flawed to me. Certainly short to medium term that might be the case, if Sindy is not achieved, but at some point either they'll get enough support for Indy, or enthusiasm would wane - permament 45-55 Sindy support is not a law of nature.
Yes, it's scotophobic paranoia to truly think that they'll keep electing pro-indy governments but never vote for indy. I've said this to the Rook before. He bridled but I stand by it.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
With all due respect to Quebec, it's a province. Scotland is one of Europe's ancient nation states and has existed for a millennium.
The independence movement has grown very deep roots and won't be grubbed up. British identity is a minority interest in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) as proven by census data, and I am as sure as I can be that the next set of figures, when eventually collated and published, will prove that it continues to diminish. I'm already quite convinced that the only thing that kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 was money. If the average Scots voter thought that they'd personally be £1 per year better off shot of Westminster then they'd've stampeded for the exit door. Most of them couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the UK and it's naive to imagine otherwise.
When you have a close to 50/50 split on a fundamental binary issue like Scottish independence the result is going to be decades of bitterness no matter which way things unfold. Brexit recriminations and divisions will be as nothing in comparison. I can understand the viewpoint that hopes the Nats win a new referendum so that we don't have to endure the constant campaigning. It's like giving in to emotional bullying. Funny how identity politics is threatening tolerance, affluence and progress. BLM and the associated politics is a new embryonic nationalism that is paradoxically supranational.
I wonder how many Unionist parties will get fewer MSPs than Alba?
Lib Dems nailed on?
No, the LDs will probably get about 8 MSPs and could also win the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency MSP seat from the SNP which has a LD MP already
Want a bet? What odds will you give to Alba getting more seats than the Lib Dems?
EDIT: Seats not votes.
They will certainly get more constituency MSPs, I am not betting on the list
Considering Alba aren't even standing in the constituency seats that's a pretty safe remark.
Its the list that matters.
I don't suppose he trusts you for a bet since you tried to leg him over with that one on the EC for WH20.
What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
You got him to do a bet where his odds were worse than the bookies were offering. Do you not remember? I do. It was on the EC being closer than last time. I tried to intervene at the time and have it voided but was ignored (as usual). Ironically the bet ended up being void anyway because the margin was equal to last time. Do you not remember? I do.
That's really rude.
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Don't take it that way. It's just we have different value systems. For me, a direct bet on here, if it's on something being traded in the market, has to offer both sides a better price than they could otherwise get.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
No, a direct bet on here amongst other things gives people self-satisfaction, it isn't about money. If its about money then go to a bookies. For you to stick your nose in and insult people for a bet you weren't a party to is rude.
HYUFD never objected to the terms of our bet, which was honoured in full. He set the terms, so why would he?
For Hartlepool I'll be happy to do a bet at evens if you want? I think Labour will win, happy to do a tenner at evens if you want?
Ok. To site funds. That's legging me over slightly (with betfair at 1.93) but I don't mind in this case because it's all being done on the level rather than off the back of a lorry.
Deal. A tenner to site funds.
A bet I'll be happy to lose but don't expect to lose.
An exact ditto. It's a bet that I too will be happy to lose but don't expect to.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
With all due respect to Quebec, it's a province. Scotland is one of Europe's ancient nation states and has existed for a millennium.
The independence movement has grown very deep roots and won't be grubbed up. British identity is a minority interest in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) as proven by census data, and I am as sure as I can be that the next set of figures, when eventually collated and published, will prove that it continues to diminish. I'm already quite convinced that the only thing that kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 was money. If the average Scots voter thought that they'd personally be £1 per year better off shot of Westminster then they'd've stampeded for the exit door. Most of them couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the UK and it's naive to imagine otherwise.
Quebec has a bigger population than Scotland and has been part of Canada for a shorter time than Scotland has been part of the UK.
Most of the Quebec population are French speaking not English speaking like the rest of Canada, at least most Scots speak English first and most people in Quebec consider themselves Quebecois first then Canadian.
It is devomax which has kept Quebec in Canada by the narrowest of margins, probably the same would be the case for Scotland staying in the UK longer term
Aye. Section 4. It changed "Secretary of State" to "Scottish Ministers":
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by order make any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as to— (a) the conduct of elections for membership of the Parliament, (b) the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities, and (c) the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.
Furthermore section 11 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to change the voting system with a super-majority of 2/3 of MSPs.
I would like to retract this as I don't think Section 4 of the Scotland Act 2016 does what I originally suggested it does.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
With all due respect to Quebec, it's a province. Scotland is one of Europe's ancient nation states and has existed for a millennium.
The independence movement has grown very deep roots and won't be grubbed up. British identity is a minority interest in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) as proven by census data, and I am as sure as I can be that the next set of figures, when eventually collated and published, will prove that it continues to diminish. I'm already quite convinced that the only thing that kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 was money. If the average Scots voter thought that they'd personally be £1 per year better off shot of Westminster then they'd've stampeded for the exit door. Most of them couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the UK and it's naive to imagine otherwise.
Quebec has a bigger population than Scotland and has been part of Canada for a shorter time than Scotland has been part of the UK.
Most of the Quebec population are French speaking not English speaking like the rest of Canada, at least most Scots speak English first and most people in Quebec consider themselves Quebecois first then Canadian.
It is devomax which has kept Quebec in Canada by the narrowest of margins, probably the same would be the case for Scotland staying in the UK longer term
Does the Parliament of Canada have the power to abolish the National Assembly of Quebec?
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Sure, but at the same time a super-majority for Independence on a minority of the votes wound be an absurdity, just as it is when a government in Westminster wins a large majority on a minority of votes thanks to FPTP.
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
Why? It's good enough for Westminster where we have majorities on minority vote shares all the time.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
The critical problem we have with the peculiar political circumstances prevailing in Scotland is, of course, that it will continue to elect an endless series of antagonistic nationalist governments, whether it can persuade a majority of the people actually to secede or not.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
Far from it, 26 years ago Quebec had its second referendum on independence from Canada which No won by just 51% to 49%.
It has not had another independence referendum since
With all due respect to Quebec, it's a province. Scotland is one of Europe's ancient nation states and has existed for a millennium.
The independence movement has grown very deep roots and won't be grubbed up. British identity is a minority interest in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) as proven by census data, and I am as sure as I can be that the next set of figures, when eventually collated and published, will prove that it continues to diminish. I'm already quite convinced that the only thing that kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 was money. If the average Scots voter thought that they'd personally be £1 per year better off shot of Westminster then they'd've stampeded for the exit door. Most of them couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the UK and it's naive to imagine otherwise.
Quebec has a bigger population than Scotland and has been part of Canada for a shorter time than Scotland has been part of the UK.
Most of the Quebec population are French speaking not English speaking like the rest of Canada, at least most Scots speak English first and most people in Quebec consider themselves Quebecois first then Canadian.
It is devomax which has kept Quebec in Canada by the narrowest of margins, probably the same would be the case for Scotland staying in the UK longer term
The problem with that is after breaking the 2014 vow and hauling the nation out of the EU, nobody in Scotland, nationalist or unionist, trusts Westminster to deliver 'Devomax' whatever that may be.
@malcolmg - will you be voting SNP-Alba or just Alba on the list?
My current intention is just ALBA on the list but I may hold my nose but not keen to give those chancers my vote, independence is big thing for me though. @tlg86
That is the brilliant part of the Sturgeon-Salmond "conspiracy".
It gives folks like you (or your opposite numbers who like the other big fish but loath yours) a good reason, to vote for politicos they otherwise won't touch with a barge pole.
Alba needs to win 5-6% or more of the list vote to damage Unionist parties.
Any less than that and they simply dent the SNP and Greens.
5% is harder than it looks. Especially when, by and large, the electorate don’t like you and this is doubly so for pro-Indy supporters.
It is obligatory to remind PBers that the Scottish system is a gerrymandered piece of crap. In NZ (approx same pop as Scotland) the list vote rules all and it is not really possible to “game” it, which is what the Greens have been doing and which Salmond is trying to do.
It is yet another stupid yougov question. Of course case numbers will rise at some point but this alone tells us almost nothing important.
Will they rise back to levels we cant cope with? What will happen to deaths and hospitalisations? Are the increases sustained or can they be reversed quickly?
I would answer very likely to the point of certainty on their question, but I am not concerned about that in the way the pollster is assuming, because I don't think they will rise back to Jan 21 or Mar 20 levels, hospitalisations and deaths will be much lower and think increases wont be sustained.
My concern is that the rising caseload will be used as a pretext to keep unnecessary measures in place for an extended period of time, backed by the large fraction of the populace that is so shit scared of Covid that they may need to be patiently talked down for years, if that even proves possible at all.
We had a meeting at work this morning in which there was an enormous amount of clucking about the minutiae of mask wearing and social distancing in various situations, accompanied by the widespread conviction that this would all be some kind of horrible "new normal" and might be going on for a very long time. I wanted desperately to remind everyone that the Government has already said it's aiming to dump all restrictions on social contact in June, and that there's little if anything left to be achieved from maintaining any of the apparatus of suppression by late Summer. Oh, and that it doesn't fucking matter if you can't stay two meters apart when travelling in opposite directions down the same corridor, because you're only near the other person for about three damned seconds.
I bit my lip though. I'm not sure that the information would've been well-received.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I would have assumed that the level of vaccination in the EU would have been high enough to cover a lot of the very old (and therefore vulnerable) and so ensure their latest set of waves are not as bad as ours in January, but it will still clearly be pretty darn bad in several of them even as we get near the period where supplies are to improve.
If Westminster continues to legislate to overrule the Scottish Parliament willy nilly when it suits, in complete disregard of the Sewell Convention, it makes a mockery of any DevoMax provision.
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only wave to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Union matters are reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, the very Act which created Holyrood in the first place.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs
The Scotland Act puts the Sewell Convention on a statutory footing.
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
The Act doesn't do that re Sewell. It merely emits warm air. As was found in the runup to Brexit voting.
I know that in reality it doesn't mean anything but that's exactly my point.
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.
Comments
I didn't "leg him over", I asked him to state his odds, he did, and I accepted them. It isn't a bet I was on at the bookmakers with, I don't know if he was, it was a friendly bet on his terms that he chose. For you to call that "a leg over" is really rude.
Should we never have direct bets made on this site? There are a few times, I've done a few, and I've never checked the bookmakers odds first because it is a direct bet between people here. If I wanted bookies odds I'd be going to the bookies.
Running away from Macron's France?
Its key provisions being:
63A Permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
(1) The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
(2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.
and
2 The Sewel convention
In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—
“(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
You are also making the mistake thinking Alba will win lots of votes and list seats and the SNP and Greens will lose barely any on the list.
More likely Alba only wins a few votes and barely any list seats (most SNP voters dislike Salmond now) but they win enough votes still to cost the SNP and Greens list seats
The regional seats are elected by d'Hondt, which is the system we once used, in the distant carefree past when we were members of the EU, for the elections to the European Parliament. However, the crucial wrinkle is that the constituency seats won in that region are taken into account for the d'Hondt calculation.
So, for example, in Glasgow the SNP won all nine constituency seats. Consequently a list seat would be their tenth, and so we divide their list vote by ten to give a vote of 11,110.
The seventh Glasgow regional seat was therefore won by the Tories, it was their second, so was won with 14,766 (their list vote divided by two).
If all the SNP list votes went to Alba, then Alba would win four list seats, because they would have no constituency seats as part of the calculation. Labour would lose two seats, the Tories one and the Greens one.
Dastardly, eh?
Riding roughshod over the Sewell Convention will only make matters worse.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1375465992852234245
If you choose FPTP the SNP will currently win huge majorities, and, under the Westminster precedent, a huge mandate for a second referendum.
Patel has kiboshed a move to STV by erroneously claiming the 2011 referendum was against all transferable vote systems.
You take more of a Delboy Trotter approach to things. This is fine but I was just postulating that as being why @HYUFD is maybe a little wary of betting with you now on this Scottish election.
I'll still bet with you, btw, so that proves I'm not being funny about things.
Like, we can look at Hartlepool. What odds would you want on Labour?
Many people forecast an increase in R as a result of the schools going back. Being surprised when it does seems strange.
I think what has happened is that the schools going back has balanced with the effect of the lockdown and the vaccines to this point.
I rather think that further progress will be vaccine dependent.
The other idea is that all the lateral tests are doing is finding asymptotic cases and that all the cases found in the older groups that have caused the "elbow" are secondary testing - Mum and Dad get a PCR test because little Bill got a positive....
On the upside the admissions are still heading down -
Little Macron will be upset
Just as extreme but from the other direction.
https://twitter.com/ChiefStevieP/status/1375481345598754819
However what Philip Thompson, a non Tory, non Unionist, little Englander libertarian, thinks would be remarkable is rather different to what I would think would be remarkable
The end result is either Union on the same terms as Yorkshire or Warwickshire, or independence.
I'm a unionist and I fundamentally believe that the only way to secure the union long term is to put in place a sustainable settlement. Otherwise, you're making the same mistake Blair made and not finishing the job.
So we have decide what Scotland's place within the union is. If that's DevoMax, then Westminster needs to accept it cannot treat Holyrood as a subordinate except on certain issues. There needs to be a clear and legal boundary - federalism if you will.
Scotland already has more home rule than any other country or region of the UK, devomax would just make that even clearer. England does not even have a Parliament at all and there is a distinct possibility that in 2024 the Tories would win a majority in England but Starmer would become PM thanks to support from Scottish and Welsh MPs. What is needed is an English Parliament or at least regional assemblies
https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1375396616669134849
Trying to scare UK population into believing that AZ/Oxford wont work on variants that are already circulating.
Does she work for the EU Commission?
New data suggests strong protection for 99% after one vaccine dose
A single dose of the Pfizer gave strong protection to 99% people in a new study, it has been revealed.
The figure applies to 237 health workers who formed part of research carried out by Sheffield and Oxford Universities.
Results of the PITCH study have been presented as a vindication of the policy to delay second doses so as to provide protection to as many higher-risk groups as possible by providing more first jabs.
The research also concluded that people who had previously been infected with COVID-19 infections had six times the immune response to one dose of the Pfizer jab than those who had not had the virus.
Health Minister Lord Bethell said: "These findings from the PITCH study are crucial to increasing our understanding of the immune response to COVID-19 and how the Pfizer vaccine is working to protect people across the UK already.""
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-live-latest-updates-rules-should-be-changed-to-let-people-who-have-had-vaccine-see-each-other-says-expert-12257001
HYUFD never objected to the terms of our bet, which was honoured in full. He set the terms, so why would he?
For Hartlepool I'll be happy to do a bet at evens if you want? I think Labour will win, happy to do a tenner at evens if you want?
If Westminster simply ignores that and legislates how it wants, when it suits, on anything, by simply amending the Scotland Act, then what on earth is the point of it?
Scotland needs a sustainable long-term settlement. The current settlement is not that.
I thought the Conservative Party was supposed to be about long-term stability?
Neither situation is tolerable in my view.
A conspiracy designed to boost voter interest AND maximize the potential nationalist vote, all in the interest of furthering the cause of Scottish independence.
Heck, think yours truly just DID connect them!
In the mid 1980s I attended an FA Cup tie between Bromsgrove Rovers and Newport County.
And, to my eternal shame, I joined in the chanting that suggested the Newport players and their supporters were, erm, over-fond of sheep.
I would like to apologise for any offence caused.
Besides a pro-independence majority in Holyrood is irrelevant if Scotland doesn't support independence as a whole. It would always have to be confirmed by referendum.
Hopefully they won't, but I don't trust the Government over the unlocking plan and will only believe that any of these steps are going to happen when they actually do.
What's that you say, BJ would be even more frit if the indy vote was over 50%? Oh well..
https://twitter.com/ianincyaak/status/1375493726693363713?s=19
I don't think it would work well for Scottish Independence either.
It's why we have to hope that, if or when the Scottish Government does eventually succeed in securing a re-run of the independence referendum, it wins. That's the only way we're going to get a quiet life.
(part of the allegations nae doot)
(1) The Scottish Ministers may by order make any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as to—
(a) the conduct of elections for membership of the Parliament,
(b) the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities, and
(c) the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.
Furthermore section 11 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to change the voting system with a super-majority of 2/3 of MSPs.
It has not had another independence referendum since
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0326/1206395-all-secondary-students-to-return-to-school-on-12-april/
https://twitter.com/snigskitchen/status/1375499084023398404?s=20
1. Federalism won't happen. Nobody in England wants umpteen regional parliaments and the Unionist parties won't create a single English Parliament because they think it will be too powerful and will blow up the Union (and also because they're extremely selfish and so won't countenance cutting the office of Prime Minister in two.)
2. Absent federalism the West Lothian question cannot be resolved, therefore the constitution remains inherently asymmetric and unfair. Members of Parliament, and by extension their voters, have different rights according to where they come from.
3. In any event, nearly half of Scotland already wants to leave. That's no foundation on which to build a sustainable relationship.
LOL.
We only have two options: build a sustainable settlement or await the inevitable.
A bet I'll be happy to lose but don't expect to lose.
The Tories would dominate English politics for years on an English Nationalist ticket to counter the SNP's Scottish Nationalism and ensure no concessions to Sturgeon and Salmond, Nationalism would be resurgent across Britain even more than now
It gives folks like you (or your opposite numbers who like the other big fish but loath yours) a good reason, to vote for politicos they otherwise won't touch with a barge pole.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1375502875359600646?s=19
The independence movement has grown very deep roots and won't be grubbed up. British identity is a minority interest in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) as proven by census data, and I am as sure as I can be that the next set of figures, when eventually collated and published, will prove that it continues to diminish. I'm already quite convinced that the only thing that kept Scotland in the Union in 2014 was money. If the average Scots voter thought that they'd personally be £1 per year better off shot of Westminster then they'd've stampeded for the exit door. Most of them couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the UK and it's naive to imagine otherwise.
Most of the Quebec population are French speaking not English speaking like the rest of Canada, at least most Scots speak English first and most people in Quebec consider themselves Quebecois first then Canadian.
It is devomax which has kept Quebec in Canada by the narrowest of margins, probably the same would be the case for Scotland staying in the UK longer term
Sorry, did not get your (good) joke there!
Doh is me.
https://twitter.com/thejonnyreilly/status/1375505070943580165?s=20
Any less than that and they simply dent the SNP and Greens.
5% is harder than it looks.
Especially when, by and large, the electorate don’t like you and this is doubly so for pro-Indy supporters.
It is obligatory to remind PBers that the Scottish system is a gerrymandered piece of crap. In NZ (approx same pop as Scotland) the list vote rules all and it is not really possible to “game” it, which is what the Greens have been doing and which Salmond is trying to do.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1375506419219243009?s=20
Will they rise back to levels we cant cope with?
What will happen to deaths and hospitalisations?
Are the increases sustained or can they be reversed quickly?
I would answer very likely to the point of certainty on their question, but I am not concerned about that in the way the pollster is assuming, because I don't think they will rise back to Jan 21 or Mar 20 levels, hospitalisations and deaths will be much lower and think increases wont be sustained.
We had a meeting at work this morning in which there was an enormous amount of clucking about the minutiae of mask wearing and social distancing in various situations, accompanied by the widespread conviction that this would all be some kind of horrible "new normal" and might be going on for a very long time. I wanted desperately to remind everyone that the Government has already said it's aiming to dump all restrictions on social contact in June, and that there's little if anything left to be achieved from maintaining any of the apparatus of suppression by late Summer. Oh, and that it doesn't fucking matter if you can't stay two meters apart when travelling in opposite directions down the same corridor, because you're only near the other person for about three damned seconds.
I bit my lip though. I'm not sure that the information would've been well-received.
Mutti Merkel has also told the french to stay at home by tightening border controls
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/sewel-convention
If Westminster is never going to be willing to permanently cede power to the Scottish Parliament then DevoMax or similar will never be worth the paper it's written on.