UK politics if Scotland votes Yes
Discussion
This whole business about the Midlothian question, Scottish labour etc etc, confuses me a bit.
Perhaps someone with a better grasp of politics can answer this for me.
If Scotland votes Yes, what does this do to the balance of power in the UK?
I know that the electoral breakdown of the boundaries for each seat, effectively favours Labour. Of course the Lid Dems rather famously scuppered an attempt to redraw the map to even things out.
But if the Scots go, what does that do to the balance in parliament?
Does it increase the chances of the Tories getting a majority? Or does it favour Labour, or maybe make another coalition even more likely?
TS
Perhaps someone with a better grasp of politics can answer this for me.
If Scotland votes Yes, what does this do to the balance of power in the UK?
I know that the electoral breakdown of the boundaries for each seat, effectively favours Labour. Of course the Lid Dems rather famously scuppered an attempt to redraw the map to even things out.
But if the Scots go, what does that do to the balance in parliament?
Does it increase the chances of the Tories getting a majority? Or does it favour Labour, or maybe make another coalition even more likely?
TS
Losing the 55 - usually not conservative - Scottish MPs will make some difference for sure, but it won't make a labour government impossible by any stretch.
You only need look back to 1997 to see a 179 seat majority for Labour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_genera...
Now 55 seats is a lot, but even without them, recent history shows a >100 seat Labour majority would still be feasible.
In practical terms the 1997 election was about voting in a new government that fundamentally seemed to finally offer a valid and plausible alternative the tories, who had gone stale in power since 1979. Its fair to say anything can still happen given the heady mix of a critical economy/debt situation with a wobbly coalition.
Ironically, a Yes could make labour focus more on the rUK and allow them to finally ignore Scotland completely - no more shipyards etc to worry about north of the border - finally areas like e.g. Liverpool & Newcastle could receive more attention. As Scotland is turning their backs on labour and what they have achieved for Scotland (e.g. carrier contracts etc.) then it follows that if independence is achieved, those same labour arguments will be deployed in the rUK resulting in more support in the rUK.
You only need look back to 1997 to see a 179 seat majority for Labour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_genera...
Now 55 seats is a lot, but even without them, recent history shows a >100 seat Labour majority would still be feasible.
In practical terms the 1997 election was about voting in a new government that fundamentally seemed to finally offer a valid and plausible alternative the tories, who had gone stale in power since 1979. Its fair to say anything can still happen given the heady mix of a critical economy/debt situation with a wobbly coalition.
Ironically, a Yes could make labour focus more on the rUK and allow them to finally ignore Scotland completely - no more shipyards etc to worry about north of the border - finally areas like e.g. Liverpool & Newcastle could receive more attention. As Scotland is turning their backs on labour and what they have achieved for Scotland (e.g. carrier contracts etc.) then it follows that if independence is achieved, those same labour arguments will be deployed in the rUK resulting in more support in the rUK.
In the current climate, an independent Scotland probably means a Conservative majority - Labour are just too weak right now to get a 1997 sort of result. A majority Conservative government will re-draw the electoral boundaries to attempt to "level" the electoral playing field (i.e. tip it in their favour) which will make continued tory governments more likely.
el stovey said:
Joey Ramone said:
From what I understand, it almost guarantees a Conservative majority. For now and evermore.
I thought it was just one of the recent labour victories that would have been conservative if you didn't include the Scottish vote. Westminster will lose 59 seats, the vast majority of them Labour ones (41 seats in 2005 & 2010; 55 in 2001; 56 in 1997; 49 seats in 1992; 50 seats in 1987).
However, Labour would still have won an outright majority in 1997, 2001 and even 2005 without these Scottish seats. But without these 59 seats I believe Dave would have had his outright majority in 2010.
For Labour to still have a majority (after removing these Scottish seats) they need a poll lead of 6 or 7 points. They are currently 1 point ahead of the Tories (the closest it has been for months) which will only give them a 5 seat majority. As it stands the Tories need a 7 or 8 point lead just to win a majority of any sorts.
So if Scotland votes 'Yes' then it will benefit the Conservatives.
However, Labour would still have won an outright majority in 1997, 2001 and even 2005 without these Scottish seats. But without these 59 seats I believe Dave would have had his outright majority in 2010.
For Labour to still have a majority (after removing these Scottish seats) they need a poll lead of 6 or 7 points. They are currently 1 point ahead of the Tories (the closest it has been for months) which will only give them a 5 seat majority. As it stands the Tories need a 7 or 8 point lead just to win a majority of any sorts.
So if Scotland votes 'Yes' then it will benefit the Conservatives.
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 23 March 13:43
toppstuff said:
I know that the electoral breakdown of the boundaries for each seat, effectively favours Labour. Of course the Lid Dems rather famously scuppered an attempt to redraw the map to even things out.
Ah, those Liberal Democrats and their principled and selfless zeal for electoral reform.If Scotland manages to swap the yoke of Westminster for that of Brussels, it might get a fair flow of people from the UK. It will no longer be able to discriminate against English and Welsh students on tuition fees. Also, with the mandatory open door policy on immigration from the EU and benefit eligibility, imagine what's going to happen with wicked and cruel Tories tightening the screw on the long term unemployable in England and Wales and the socialist republic of Scotland building the scrounger's utopia over the border.
otolith said:
If Scotland manages to swap the yoke of Westminster for that of Brussels, it might get a fair flow of people from the UK. It will no longer be able to discriminate against English and Welsh students on tuition fees. Also, with the mandatory open door policy on immigration from the EU and benefit eligibility, imagine what's going to happen with wicked and cruel Tories tightening the screw on the long term unemployable in England and Wales and the socialist republic of Scotland building the scrounger's utopia over the border.
its better then that as it will be an open door no matter what to immigration.this is one of the main arguments that we can have completely unchecked immigration and free stuff for everyone up here
it will be brilliant
unless you work
Politics works in mysterious ways. Party politics, on the other hand, is fairly simple.
It is a balancing act.
All parties, at least those with a chance of getting some of their members elected, choose compromise. They all move towards the centre in order to get elected. Blair moved labour to the centre.
If Scotland's MPs leave the HoC then the probability is that over time, and I would guess fairly short time, the nutty right would gain more power and pull the party their way.
Labour would move to the centre and there would be the old 'balance' again. That is the basis of two party politics.
If anything there is a risk that the tory party would indulge in squabbling again. It happened under Major, and indeed under Thatcher to an extent, and there's nothing more likely to upset the electorate than a party that want's to control the country not even being able to control their own party.
Party politics is all about covering up the battles within your own party.
It is a balancing act.
All parties, at least those with a chance of getting some of their members elected, choose compromise. They all move towards the centre in order to get elected. Blair moved labour to the centre.
If Scotland's MPs leave the HoC then the probability is that over time, and I would guess fairly short time, the nutty right would gain more power and pull the party their way.
Labour would move to the centre and there would be the old 'balance' again. That is the basis of two party politics.
If anything there is a risk that the tory party would indulge in squabbling again. It happened under Major, and indeed under Thatcher to an extent, and there's nothing more likely to upset the electorate than a party that want's to control the country not even being able to control their own party.
Party politics is all about covering up the battles within your own party.
Joey Ramone said:
From what I understand, it almost guarantees a Conservative majority. For now and evermore.
Don't blame us (Scotland) for getting a Tory government that you don't want. If you take out every Scottish vote out of the equation - it would not have effected the results of any General Election from the 1950's onwards. The Tory governments we got would have been unchanged and the Labour Governments we have had would not have changed, so it is a fallacy to suggest that Scotland are somehow responsible for keeping the Tories at bay. On the other hand, Scotland on the whole do not vote Tory enough for us to warrant having a Tory Government.
Most of the pro-independence folks I know are pretty left-wing and think that an independent Scotland will continue to vote for left-ish parties. Actually, when they are solely responsible for funding the state's largesse as well as for choosing its extent, I think there might be a bit of a shift of position.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff