Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?

[littlebabyjesus]

There are other views of this. In the elections since 1974, the party of government has also had the largest number of seats in England/Wales. But what other effects have there been on politics of a strongly anti-Tory Scotland? It is really hard to produce meaningful counter-factual history. A purely English or English/Welsh Labour party would have been different from the one that could rely on Scottish seats, and that could have taken it in different directions - even taken it leftwards.

 

[danny la rouge]

brilliant rebuttal argument there danny.

I've just clearly demonstrated that it has misinterpreted the numbers for 1974 where it claimed that Labour would still have been able to form a minority government with 50 MPs less than needed for a majority (a figure that's completely wrong anyway), and ignored the fact that the Tories would have been the largest party by 15 MPs.

So how is that not misleading?

You've misread what the blog says.

on only TWO occasions, the most recent of them being 38 years ago, (1964 and the second of the two 1974 elections), have Scottish MPs given Labour a majority they wouldn’t have had from England/Wales/NI alone.

Are you mixing up the two 74 elections?

 

[danny la rouge]

do what you will as a country, but at least do it based on an accurate analysis of the situation, rather than misleading bollocks like the article Geminisnake and Danny apparently seem to view as some sort of proof that Scotland leaving won't have a significant impact on the electoral situation at Westminster.

You've misread the article. But let us assume you hadn't. For the argument. Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted. We are 10% of the UK. Isn't that anti-democratic?

 

[free spirit]

You've misread what the blog says.



Are you mixing up the two 74 elections?

I've not, it also makes this claim which is false.

- Scottish MPs have NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one, or indeed vice versa.

in that first 1974 election the conservatives would have been the largest party by 15 MPs, more than labour and liberals combined, and would therefore have been very likely to have ended up forming the government instead of the minority labour government.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There might conceivably not have been a second election in 74 without Scotland - the Tories might have managed to form a govt with the Ulster Unionists. You end up with lots of 'mights'. But any minority govt, which the Tories would have been, is weak, so who knows what would have happened.

There are too many imponderables here to say anything with confidence. Making specific points about close elections is particularly hard. These kinds of stats are only useful for broad-brush assertions, I think, such as the one that there is no in-built tory majority in England and never has been.

 

[free spirit]

You've misread the article. But let us assume you hadn't. For the argument. Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted. We are 10% of the UK. Isn't that anti-democratic?

If we had PR you may have a point, but we don't, so in effect the Scottish element to the system has been balancing out the SE of England.

Remove Scotland and the imbalance created by the first past the post system becomes even more weighted in the tories favour most of the time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You've misread the article. But let us assume you hadn't. For the argument. Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted. We are 10% of the UK. Isn't that anti-democratic?

(Assuming for the sake of argument a fair electoral system.)

No, not at all, because for Britain as a whole to have a majority of one colour, the majority for the other colour in any 90 per cent subsection must be wafer-thin. And Scotland isn't the only Scotland-sized chunk of the UK that has been consistently Labour for the last 40 years.

Why single out Scotland? Why not single out, say, Yorkshire instead? The only reason to single out Scotland is some kind of nationalist sentiment, is it not?

 

[free spirit]

There might conceivably not have been a second election in 74 without Scotland - the Tories might have managed to form a govt with the Ulster Unionists. You end up with lots of 'mights'. But any minority govt, which the Tories would have been, is weak, so who knows what would have happened.

There are too many imponderables here to say anything with confidence. Making specific points about close elections is particularly hard. These kinds of stats are only useful for broad-brush assertions, I think, such as the one that there is no in-built tory majority in England and never has been.

the article made a specific claim, I'm refuting that specific claim, you're right about the rest of it being speculation. An alternative future could well have involves the tories fucking it right up from 74, and the country turning to Labour as a result at the next election, resulting in a decade or more of fairly left wing labour government instead of Thatcher.... who knows, it's all speculation, but the most likely part of all that would be that the minority labour government would have become a minority conservative government in early 74 without the Scottish input.

ps in 74 there were still 21 tory MPs in Scotland with only a difference of 19 between labout and tory, now that difference is more like 40-50 depending on the balance between SNP, Labour etc

 

[danny la rouge]

I've not, it also makes this claim which is false.


in that first 1974 election the conservatives would have been the largest party by 15 MPs, more than labour and liberals combined, and would therefore have been very likely to have ended up forming the government instead of the minority labour government.

Here's the site: http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

Here's what it says about Feb 74:

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY
(Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16)

Here's what it says about the 2nd 74 election:

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY
(Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15)

It also says:

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

I've been searching the article for the phrase you've quoted. "Scottish MPs have NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one, or indeed vice versa." I can't find it. Am I missing it?

Here's the blog again: http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's an interesting phenomenon the way the tories lost Scotland between the 50s and the 80s. I don't buy geminisnake's explanation that it was down to the end of deference to the wishes of the rich. Surely if that change did happen, it will have happened equally across the UK.

 

[danny la rouge]

the article made a specific claim

I can't see that claim anywhere in the article. Sorry.

 

[free spirit]

In the article Geminisnake posted the link to it says this about the first 1974 election

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————-
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
NO CHANGE

So that article Geminisnake linked to got that and the claim I quoted wrong. You seem to have linked to what look to be identical articles by the same author on the same date, but with this bit changed and the claim removed, so I suspect that those articles were corrected later or something.

Even the corrected articles you link to state this though

- on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

So even though in the stats they've specifically highlighted the probable change in 74 from minority labour minority tory government, the author chose to ignore this within the actual article itself.

 

[free spirit]

I can't see that claim anywhere in the article. Sorry.

you're looking in an amended version of the article, I was referencing the version Geminisnake had linked to on page one of this thread.

 

[danny la rouge]

In the article Geminisnake posted the link to it says this about the first 1974 election

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/



So that article Geminisnake linked to got that and the claim I quoted wrong. You seem to have linked to what look to be identical articles by the same author on the same date, but with this bit changed and the claim removed, so I suspect that those articles were corrected later or something.

Even the corrected articles you link to state this though



So even though in the stats they've specifically highlighted the probable change in 74 from minority labour minority tory government, the author chose to ignore this within the actual article itself.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you about a possible earlier draft I didn't see or link to.

 

[geminisnake]

Does it really matter?? One election? Whoopdee doo!! Hair splitting people!! The rest of the article is presumably correct. SO once in how many years the scottish vote made a difference? The bottom line IS we are not leaving you to a total tory Govt for the rest of your lives by voting for independence.

If you want to continue to argue go for it but I'm not playing

 

[danny la rouge]

Why single out Scotland?

Big question. Well, because it is being singled out: "Without Scotland we'll have a perpetual Tory majority", people* say. Well, no you won't.

But why are we asking what the UK would look like without Scotland? Because it's a possibility. Because there'll be a referendum on just that possibility in a few months' time. Why not Yorkshire? Because there's never been any appetite for any measure of independence or even devolution for Yorkshire.

The reason I posed the scenario the way I did was to try and find out the logic behind those who say "without Scotland Labour would never win".


*Including George Galloway, recently.

 

[_angel_]

Why not Yorkshire? Because there's never been any appetite for any measure of independence or even devolution for Yorkshire.

.

Oh really?

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh really?

Are you going to say there has? If there has, I stand corrected. I was not aware of this.

 

[_angel_]

Are you going to say there has? If there has, I stand corrected. I was not aware of this.

To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....

 

[geminisnake]

Oh really?

Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.

And here is one of the problems. Piecemeal devolution rather than a move towards proper federalisation. IMO the UK is a constitutional mess as it stands, and it is England that loses out in that mess. Devolution should have been for everyone.

It's also one of the problems I have with nationalists. So you just campaign for Scotland, and bollocks to everyone else?

 

[danny la rouge]

IMO the UK is a constitutional mess

I'd agree.

 

[danny la rouge]

To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....

I have to disagree.

 

[geminisnake]

It's also one of the problems I have with nationalists. So you just campaign for Scotland, and bollocks to everyone else?

I don't see it like that. I see it that a group of people wanted a 'better' way and have done what they can to achieve that. It's not my fault they didn't go for the whole of the UK. Same as it's not my fault people in England keep voting for the right of centre.

 

[Fedayn]

To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....

The fact that Yorkshire had left would make England a more attractive place to live.

 

[DotCommunist]

I thought I was a flinty-eyed hard haggler and a man who is master of pennies and pounds. Then I spent a week in yorkshire, where they will even haggle over the price of a can of coke

 

[weltweit]

I thought I was a flinty-eyed hard haggler and a man who is master of pennies and pounds. Then I spent a week in yorkshire, where they will even haggle over the price of a can of coke

Yorkshire, where men are men, and sheep are scared.

.. or was that Wales

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.

I think that if Scotland leaves, the NE of England and other outlying regions will have more of an appetite for devolution simply because they would then be on the periphery of the country. Currently they are sort of in the middle of the UK, which might explain the no vote the other year.

Another possible reason for the no vote was that the NE simply doesn't see London as relevant given it is so far away.

 

[weltweit]

In browsing Google Maps earlier (see separate thread) it struck me how many countries have their capitals way out away from the middle of their territories. Seems odd. Australia: Canberra is way down in the South East, Britain: London SE also, etc etc ....

Why would you do that?

 

[Nylock]

Access to the sea/trade routes innit

E2A
Fuck knows with Canberra though, but that was a 'purpose-built' capital and not one that evolved over time... Tbf, would you want your capital smack in the middle of the 'red centre' if you were an Australian?