The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Apr 13th 2015, 9:20 am
#166
Bored liberal
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Over there ----->
Posts: 13,713
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Considering the discussions on here, and elsewhere among expats, how many of you have registered to vote?
If you have been out of the UK for over 15 years you will have lost that right but most of us here will still be able to, provided we were registered to do so in the previous 15 years.
If you have been out of the UK for over 15 years you will have lost that right but most of us here will still be able to, provided we were registered to do so in the previous 15 years.
Apr 13th 2015, 9:27 am
#167
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Considering the discussions on here, and elsewhere among expats, how many of you have registered to vote?
If you have been out of the UK for over 15 years you will have lost that right but most of us here will still be able to, provided we were registered to do so in the previous 15 years.
If you have been out of the UK for over 15 years you will have lost that right but most of us here will still be able to, provided we were registered to do so in the previous 15 years.
Apr 13th 2015, 9:38 am
#168
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Well, well, well, it's all very interesting.
It does highlight the flaws of the FPP system we have in the UK. The SNP will go from being very underrepresented to very overrepresented. They will end up with the vast majority of Scottish seats despite unlikely to score over 50% of the vote within Scotland. The "unionists" parties are still likely to take an outright majority of votes cast in Scotland but because they are divided into different parties, they lose not just seats but political influence.
Likewise, the UKIP in England will be vastly underrepresented relative to their share of the vote (I leave it to you to decide if that's a good or bad thing).
I do wonder how different it all would have been had Gordon Brown won the 2010 election and was the one facing reelection today? The dramatic jump in support for SNP in the 2011 election seemed to be a direct reaction to the Tories' victory in 2010. Should Labour claw their way back to power, whether this year or in the future, will support for the SNP decline?
Are we entering a brave new future where the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland due to FPP and uses their seats in Westminster to manipulate English affairs and prevent an outright Tory majority, but regularly fails to win independence referendums within Scotland? I daresay there's quite a few people both in England and Scotland who would be happy with that scenario as it implies a near permanent left government for the UK as a whole. Alternatively, it could make relationships north and south of the border more bitter. We will see.
It does highlight the flaws of the FPP system we have in the UK. The SNP will go from being very underrepresented to very overrepresented. They will end up with the vast majority of Scottish seats despite unlikely to score over 50% of the vote within Scotland. The "unionists" parties are still likely to take an outright majority of votes cast in Scotland but because they are divided into different parties, they lose not just seats but political influence.
Likewise, the UKIP in England will be vastly underrepresented relative to their share of the vote (I leave it to you to decide if that's a good or bad thing).
I do wonder how different it all would have been had Gordon Brown won the 2010 election and was the one facing reelection today? The dramatic jump in support for SNP in the 2011 election seemed to be a direct reaction to the Tories' victory in 2010. Should Labour claw their way back to power, whether this year or in the future, will support for the SNP decline?
Are we entering a brave new future where the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland due to FPP and uses their seats in Westminster to manipulate English affairs and prevent an outright Tory majority, but regularly fails to win independence referendums within Scotland? I daresay there's quite a few people both in England and Scotland who would be happy with that scenario as it implies a near permanent left government for the UK as a whole. Alternatively, it could make relationships north and south of the border more bitter. We will see.
If i were the snp and things go well in a coalition id think long and hard about rebranding and fielding candidates across the UK. All they need do is drop scottish independence as a main aim and I believe that they would be a serious contender for votes across the whole of the UK. Perhaps the new new labour party. Sturgeon certainly polls well across the whole of the Uk and not just in Scotland as a party leader.
we live in interesting times as they say
Apr 13th 2015, 9:48 am
#169
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
we're not talking a nice wee rise here we are talking about the very real possibility that the SNP will hold the balance of power to form a coalition government in westminster and the total wipeout of labour and the conservatives in scotland.
The daily mail et al are livid because the nationalists have a very real shot at sitting in cabinet meetings at No 10. with the very real power to get their own way.
Of the 59 scottish seats available various polls put the snp at a low of taking 27 of them and a high of taking 57 with most polls taking an average at a likely 40 odd seats. Just 20 years ago numbers like that would have had the SNP unilaterally declaring independence (they are highly unlikely to do so whatever the result this election).
Its very likely that the SNP will become the 3rd largest party in parliament with maybe twice the number of seats as the liberals
One possible outcome is that the conservatives and Liberals will not win a single seat in scotland thus raising the question in the event of a further liberal conservative government just how democratic is the UK and how exactly Scotland can be governed morally without a single MP from the governing parties having been elected.
Labour who have pretty much been a guaranteed scottish majority for decades face a prospect where they are a minority in scottish politics and possibly a very small minority.
to give you an idea of the massive change see below
here
or here
http://files.stv.tv/imagebase/316/60...15com-site.jpg
https://electionsetcdev.files.wordpr...ain-150410.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7THZwr8OI
The daily mail et al are livid because the nationalists have a very real shot at sitting in cabinet meetings at No 10. with the very real power to get their own way.
Of the 59 scottish seats available various polls put the snp at a low of taking 27 of them and a high of taking 57 with most polls taking an average at a likely 40 odd seats. Just 20 years ago numbers like that would have had the SNP unilaterally declaring independence (they are highly unlikely to do so whatever the result this election).
Its very likely that the SNP will become the 3rd largest party in parliament with maybe twice the number of seats as the liberals
One possible outcome is that the conservatives and Liberals will not win a single seat in scotland thus raising the question in the event of a further liberal conservative government just how democratic is the UK and how exactly Scotland can be governed morally without a single MP from the governing parties having been elected.
Labour who have pretty much been a guaranteed scottish majority for decades face a prospect where they are a minority in scottish politics and possibly a very small minority.
to give you an idea of the massive change see below
here
or here
http://files.stv.tv/imagebase/316/60...15com-site.jpg
https://electionsetcdev.files.wordpr...ain-150410.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7THZwr8OI
If the max suggested (57 seats) that would equal what Lib Dem got at the last election. If Cons/Lab is as close as last time, we end up in the same position, where there is a coalition government almost certainly with SNP (right?).
Thinking longer term - I think it hurt Lib Dems massively because they had to concede on lots of things they 'stood' for.
Wouldn't the SNP have to do the same in some areas?
Apr 13th 2015, 10:07 am
#170
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Interesting,
If the max suggested (57 seats) that would equal what Lib Dem got at the last election. If Cons/Lab is as close as last time, we end up in the same position, where there is a coalition government almost certainly with SNP (right?).
Its looking highly likely that the SNP will be part of any coalition talks but it may be that Labour and the tories talk to everyone but the SNP to try to get the numbers needed.
Thinking longer term - I think it hurt Lib Dems massively because they had to concede on lots of things they 'stood' for. yup, they are already screwed
Wouldn't the SNP have to do the same in some areas?
If the max suggested (57 seats) that would equal what Lib Dem got at the last election. If Cons/Lab is as close as last time, we end up in the same position, where there is a coalition government almost certainly with SNP (right?).
Its looking highly likely that the SNP will be part of any coalition talks but it may be that Labour and the tories talk to everyone but the SNP to try to get the numbers needed.
Thinking longer term - I think it hurt Lib Dems massively because they had to concede on lots of things they 'stood' for. yup, they are already screwed
Wouldn't the SNP have to do the same in some areas?
For me personally I'd be willing to see them concede quite a lot in order to be in power at all and I think a lot of voters would agree that huge compromises would be worth it for the chance to at least have an actual say in cabinet meetings, govt. policy etc.
(There will of course be some who are rabid at the idea of compromise!)
who knows what will happen once the votes are counted but for the SNP and the nationalists to be even looking at the opportunity to govern in both westminster and the scottish parliament at the same time is something that just a few years ago even the most deluded wouldn't have dared to dream.
the reality that Sturgeon and the SNP are for now the most powerful group in UK wide politics is unbelieveable and regardless of outcome in the actual election they can safely say they have already won a great deal and if nothing else have scared the living shit out of more than a few politicians and voters south of the border.
as i said before in this thread, i don't care what happens as I'm loving this run up so much that the final result doesn't particularly matter to me anymore.
Apr 13th 2015, 10:08 am
#171
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,520
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Not quite. The SNP has never had a majority of the vote cast.
Looking at the 2011 data as per Wiki's page, the SNP won 45% of the votes cast in that year (much the same as their share of the independence vote three years later, not surprising), but was alloted 53.49% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. So they are overrepresented. Less than half the votes cast, but over half the seats in the parliament.
It does make a difference on how you view the party. Do you view them as a solid left wing party and a replacement for Labour and quietly ignore the Independence stance, or do you view them as purely an independence party?
Therein lies the other problem with your comment about the SNP fielding candidates across all of UK. The biggest element of their platform, and has always been, independence for Scotland. How can they field themselves as a national (UK) party whilst being gung ho for independence? There's a deep hypocrisy involved there.
Looking at the 2011 data as per Wiki's page, the SNP won 45% of the votes cast in that year (much the same as their share of the independence vote three years later, not surprising), but was alloted 53.49% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. So they are overrepresented. Less than half the votes cast, but over half the seats in the parliament.
It does make a difference on how you view the party. Do you view them as a solid left wing party and a replacement for Labour and quietly ignore the Independence stance, or do you view them as purely an independence party?
Therein lies the other problem with your comment about the SNP fielding candidates across all of UK. The biggest element of their platform, and has always been, independence for Scotland. How can they field themselves as a national (UK) party whilst being gung ho for independence? There's a deep hypocrisy involved there.
who knows ultimately but even with proportional representation the snp has a majority govt in the scottish parliament so fpp isn't to blame for the swing in this case at this time.
If i were the snp and things go well in a coalition id think long and hard about rebranding and fielding candidates across the UK. All they need do is drop scottish independence as a main aim and I believe that they would be a serious contender for votes across the whole of the UK. Perhaps the new new labour party. Sturgeon certainly polls well across the whole of the Uk and not just in Scotland as a party leader.
we live in interesting times as they say
If i were the snp and things go well in a coalition id think long and hard about rebranding and fielding candidates across the UK. All they need do is drop scottish independence as a main aim and I believe that they would be a serious contender for votes across the whole of the UK. Perhaps the new new labour party. Sturgeon certainly polls well across the whole of the Uk and not just in Scotland as a party leader.
we live in interesting times as they say
Apr 13th 2015, 10:15 am
#172
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,520
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
It's just all very messy and when things get messy, things quickly become very unhappy, and therein lies the danger.
UKIP is projected to average 10% of the votes cast for all UK, but will win one, maybe two seats.
SNP is projected to average 3.5% of the votes cast for all UK and end up with an estimated 42 seats.
It's called the shit hitting the fan for many people.
ElectionForecast.co.uk
When you have situations with coalitions governing by razor thin and rapidly changing majorities, very little gets accomplished, very little gets resolved, and people are much more likely to grow even more disengaged with politics in general.
As for the SNP, they have indeed been brilliant, they've certainly resorted to Machiavellian tactis and quite a bit dirty campaigning and manipulating fears and desires to get where they are now. I don't judge them for it, all the parties would do it if they can. The big challenge is that they've never properly governed on the national levels and have never had to be in the situation that the main parties have been, so they look fresh and unblemished (despite that their governing record within Scotland so far is pretty piss poor and hypocritical). They have that advantage.
UKIP is projected to average 10% of the votes cast for all UK, but will win one, maybe two seats.
SNP is projected to average 3.5% of the votes cast for all UK and end up with an estimated 42 seats.
It's called the shit hitting the fan for many people.
ElectionForecast.co.uk
When you have situations with coalitions governing by razor thin and rapidly changing majorities, very little gets accomplished, very little gets resolved, and people are much more likely to grow even more disengaged with politics in general.
As for the SNP, they have indeed been brilliant, they've certainly resorted to Machiavellian tactis and quite a bit dirty campaigning and manipulating fears and desires to get where they are now. I don't judge them for it, all the parties would do it if they can. The big challenge is that they've never properly governed on the national levels and have never had to be in the situation that the main parties have been, so they look fresh and unblemished (despite that their governing record within Scotland so far is pretty piss poor and hypocritical). They have that advantage.
yes the SNP would have to concede many points in order to form a coalition and stay in it, they are however already laying out their terms as for now they have all the power.
For me personally I'd be willing to see them concede quite a lot in order to be in power at all and I think a lot of voters would agree that huge compromises would be worth it for the chance to at least have an actual say in cabinet meetings, govt. policy etc.
(There will of course be some who are rabid at the idea of compromise!)
who knows what will happen once the votes are counted but for the SNP and the nationalists to be even looking at the opportunity to govern in both westminster and the scottish parliament at the same time is something that just a few years ago even the most deluded wouldn't have dared to dream.
the reality that Sturgeon and the SNP are for now the most powerful group in UK wide politics is unbelieveable and regardless of outcome in the actual election they can safely say they have already won a great deal and if nothing else have scared the living shit out of more than a few politicians and voters south of the border.
as i said before in this thread, i don't care what happens as I'm loving this run up so much that the final result doesn't particularly matter to me anymore.
For me personally I'd be willing to see them concede quite a lot in order to be in power at all and I think a lot of voters would agree that huge compromises would be worth it for the chance to at least have an actual say in cabinet meetings, govt. policy etc.
(There will of course be some who are rabid at the idea of compromise!)
who knows what will happen once the votes are counted but for the SNP and the nationalists to be even looking at the opportunity to govern in both westminster and the scottish parliament at the same time is something that just a few years ago even the most deluded wouldn't have dared to dream.
the reality that Sturgeon and the SNP are for now the most powerful group in UK wide politics is unbelieveable and regardless of outcome in the actual election they can safely say they have already won a great deal and if nothing else have scared the living shit out of more than a few politicians and voters south of the border.
as i said before in this thread, i don't care what happens as I'm loving this run up so much that the final result doesn't particularly matter to me anymore.
Apr 13th 2015, 10:15 am
#173
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Not quite. The SNP has never had a majority of the vote cast.
Looking at the 2011 data as per Wiki's page, the SNP won 45% of the votes cast in that year (much the same as their share of the independence vote three years later, not surprising), but was alloted 53.49% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. So they are overrepresented. Less than half the votes cast, but over half the seats in the parliament.
It does make a difference on how you view the party. Do you view them as a solid left wing party and a replacement for Labour and quietly ignore the Independence stance, or do you view them as purely an independence party?
Therein lies the other problem with your comment about the SNP fielding candidates across all of UK. The biggest element of their platform, and has always been, independence for Scotland. How can they field themselves as a national (UK) party whilst being gung ho for independence? There's a deep hypocrisy involved there.
Looking at the 2011 data as per Wiki's page, the SNP won 45% of the votes cast in that year (much the same as their share of the independence vote three years later, not surprising), but was alloted 53.49% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. So they are overrepresented. Less than half the votes cast, but over half the seats in the parliament.
It does make a difference on how you view the party. Do you view them as a solid left wing party and a replacement for Labour and quietly ignore the Independence stance, or do you view them as purely an independence party?
Therein lies the other problem with your comment about the SNP fielding candidates across all of UK. The biggest element of their platform, and has always been, independence for Scotland. How can they field themselves as a national (UK) party whilst being gung ho for independence? There's a deep hypocrisy involved there.
personally I view them as a means to an end and am not a fan of a great deal of their policies or views. However I am but 1 vote and as I say the do have a mass appeal particularly to labour voters and liberal voters
Apr 13th 2015, 10:18 am
#174
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
It's just all very messy and when things get messy, things quickly become very unhappy, and therein lies the danger.
UKIP is projected to average 10% of the votes cast for all UK, but will win one, maybe two seats.
SNP is projected to average 3.5% of the votes cast for all UK and end up with an estimated 42 seats.
It's called the shit hitting the fan for many people.
ElectionForecast.co.uk
When you have situations with coalitions governing by razor thin and rapidly changing majorities, very little gets accomplished, very little gets resolved, and people are much more likely to grow even more disengaged with politics in general.
As for the SNP, they have indeed been brilliant, they've certainly resorted to Machiavellian tactis and quite a bit dirty campaigning and manipulating fears and desires to get where they are now. I don't judge them for it, all the parties would do it if they can. The big challenge is that they've never properly governed on the national levels and have never had to be in the situation that the main parties have been, so they look fresh and unblemished (despite that their governing record within Scotland so far is pretty piss poor and hypocritical). They have that advantage.
UKIP is projected to average 10% of the votes cast for all UK, but will win one, maybe two seats.
SNP is projected to average 3.5% of the votes cast for all UK and end up with an estimated 42 seats.
It's called the shit hitting the fan for many people.
ElectionForecast.co.uk
When you have situations with coalitions governing by razor thin and rapidly changing majorities, very little gets accomplished, very little gets resolved, and people are much more likely to grow even more disengaged with politics in general.
As for the SNP, they have indeed been brilliant, they've certainly resorted to Machiavellian tactis and quite a bit dirty campaigning and manipulating fears and desires to get where they are now. I don't judge them for it, all the parties would do it if they can. The big challenge is that they've never properly governed on the national levels and have never had to be in the situation that the main parties have been, so they look fresh and unblemished (despite that their governing record within Scotland so far is pretty piss poor and hypocritical). They have that advantage.
Apr 13th 2015, 12:04 pm
#175
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: bute
Posts: 9,740
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
The London Press has been talking about "Coalition" but that has been ruled out by the SNP. It has been suggested that they might support a Labour Government on an "issue by issue" basis. Non-renewal of trident and an end to Austerity would be conditions before any deal was made. Uncle Sam will not be happy.
Apr 15th 2015, 12:24 pm
#176
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Well, well, well, it's all very interesting.
It does highlight the flaws of the FPP system we have in the UK. The SNP will go from being very underrepresented to very overrepresented. They will end up with the vast majority of Scottish seats despite unlikely to score over 50% of the vote within Scotland. The "unionists" parties are still likely to take an outright majority of votes cast in Scotland but because they are divided into different parties, they lose not just seats but political influence.
Likewise, the UKIP in England will be vastly underrepresented relative to their share of the vote (I leave it to you to decide if that's a good or bad thing).
I do wonder how different it all would have been had Gordon Brown won the 2010 election and was the one facing reelection today? The dramatic jump in support for SNP in the 2011 election seemed to be a direct reaction to the Tories' victory in 2010. Should Labour claw their way back to power, whether this year or in the future, will support for the SNP decline?
Are we entering a brave new future where the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland due to FPP and uses their seats in Westminster to manipulate English affairs and prevent an outright Tory majority, but regularly fails to win independence referendums within Scotland? I daresay there's quite a few people both in England and Scotland who would be happy with that scenario as it implies a near permanent left government for the UK as a whole. Alternatively, it could make relationships north and south of the border more bitter. We will see.
It does highlight the flaws of the FPP system we have in the UK. The SNP will go from being very underrepresented to very overrepresented. They will end up with the vast majority of Scottish seats despite unlikely to score over 50% of the vote within Scotland. The "unionists" parties are still likely to take an outright majority of votes cast in Scotland but because they are divided into different parties, they lose not just seats but political influence.
Likewise, the UKIP in England will be vastly underrepresented relative to their share of the vote (I leave it to you to decide if that's a good or bad thing).
I do wonder how different it all would have been had Gordon Brown won the 2010 election and was the one facing reelection today? The dramatic jump in support for SNP in the 2011 election seemed to be a direct reaction to the Tories' victory in 2010. Should Labour claw their way back to power, whether this year or in the future, will support for the SNP decline?
Are we entering a brave new future where the SNP is the dominant party in Scotland due to FPP and uses their seats in Westminster to manipulate English affairs and prevent an outright Tory majority, but regularly fails to win independence referendums within Scotland? I daresay there's quite a few people both in England and Scotland who would be happy with that scenario as it implies a near permanent left government for the UK as a whole. Alternatively, it could make relationships north and south of the border more bitter. We will see.
No government in the UK since 1935 has held power whilst, at the same time, holding the majority of public support.
The fact is that we Scots have been used to this idiosyncrasy for generations. The Scots have historically voted Labour. Therefore, every Tory government that held office was proof that FPTP had 'failings'.
Now that it appears that show is on the other foot, the English are complaining...
They dont like it up 'em, Capt Mainwairing...
or.. my favourite from the Two Ronnies....
The Worm(s) that Turned.....
Apr 15th 2015, 1:00 pm
#177
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Dubai, working at Dust World Central
Posts: 3,706
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Quite frankly yet more pish. The Unionist Party, which became the Scottish Conservative Party in 1965, was a major political force, taking turns with its only real competitor, the Labour Party, to be the dominant force. So throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Unionist Party regularly commanded between 40 and 50 per cent of the Scottish vote, a trend which continued after the Second World War. At the 1951 General Election, for instance, the Unionists, in alliance with the National Liberals and the Conservative Party, won the support of 1,349,298 Scots, amounting to 48 per cent of votes cast. The Labour Party polled slightly fewer on 47 per cent of the vote, winning the support of 1,330,244. Again at the 1955 election, Scotland showed its Unionist, Tory-approving colours, with 50.1 per cent of Scots voting Unionist/Tory, compared to 46.7 per cent voting Labour.
At the 1983 General Election, the Tories polled 28.4 per cent of vote (801,487) to Labour’s 35 per cent (990,654); at the 1987 General Election, the Tories polled 24 per cent (713,081) to Labour’s 42.4 per cent (1,258, 132); and at the 1992 General Election the Tories polled 25.6 per cent (751,850 votes) to Labour’s 39 per cent (1,142,911).
It’s also important to note that over the past 15 years, while the Tory vote in Scotland has shrunk, the Labour vote has failed to grow. Your claim has simply not been borne out at the polling booth. In 1992, Labour received 1,142,911 votes; in 2001, Labour received 1,001,173 votes; and in 2010, Labour received 1,035,528 votes – fewer votes than the Tories received in 1964.
At the 1983 General Election, the Tories polled 28.4 per cent of vote (801,487) to Labour’s 35 per cent (990,654); at the 1987 General Election, the Tories polled 24 per cent (713,081) to Labour’s 42.4 per cent (1,258, 132); and at the 1992 General Election the Tories polled 25.6 per cent (751,850 votes) to Labour’s 39 per cent (1,142,911).
It’s also important to note that over the past 15 years, while the Tory vote in Scotland has shrunk, the Labour vote has failed to grow. Your claim has simply not been borne out at the polling booth. In 1992, Labour received 1,142,911 votes; in 2001, Labour received 1,001,173 votes; and in 2010, Labour received 1,035,528 votes – fewer votes than the Tories received in 1964.
Apr 15th 2015, 1:07 pm
#178
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Labour governments of 1950, 1964, 1974 and, I think if you break down the numbers, 2005 all relied on Scottish MPs, so the English have plenty of experience of being ruled by a government they didn't vote for put in place by less than 10 per cent of the population.
Apr 15th 2015, 1:10 pm
#179
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Dubai, working at Dust World Central
Posts: 3,706
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Something I think we can all agree on:
Apr 16th 2015, 4:18 am
#180
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: The Most Dangerous Woman in Britain
Quite frankly yet more pish. The Unionist Party, which became the Scottish Conservative Party in 1965, was a major political force, taking turns with its only real competitor, the Labour Party, to be the dominant force. So throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Unionist Party regularly commanded between 40 and 50 per cent of the Scottish vote, a trend which continued after the Second World War. At the 1951 General Election, for instance, the Unionists, in alliance with the National Liberals and the Conservative Party, won the support of 1,349,298 Scots, amounting to 48 per cent of votes cast. The Labour Party polled slightly fewer on 47 per cent of the vote, winning the support of 1,330,244. Again at the 1955 election, Scotland showed its Unionist, Tory-approving colours, with 50.1 per cent of Scots voting Unionist/Tory, compared to 46.7 per cent voting Labour.
At the 1983 General Election, the Tories polled 28.4 per cent of vote (801,487) to Labour’s 35 per cent (990,654); at the 1987 General Election, the Tories polled 24 per cent (713,081) to Labour’s 42.4 per cent (1,258, 132); and at the 1992 General Election the Tories polled 25.6 per cent (751,850 votes) to Labour’s 39 per cent (1,142,911).
It’s also important to note that over the past 15 years, while the Tory vote in Scotland has shrunk, the Labour vote has failed to grow. Your claim has simply not been borne out at the polling booth. In 1992, Labour received 1,142,911 votes; in 2001, Labour received 1,001,173 votes; and in 2010, Labour received 1,035,528 votes – fewer votes than the Tories received in 1964.
At the 1983 General Election, the Tories polled 28.4 per cent of vote (801,487) to Labour’s 35 per cent (990,654); at the 1987 General Election, the Tories polled 24 per cent (713,081) to Labour’s 42.4 per cent (1,258, 132); and at the 1992 General Election the Tories polled 25.6 per cent (751,850 votes) to Labour’s 39 per cent (1,142,911).
It’s also important to note that over the past 15 years, while the Tory vote in Scotland has shrunk, the Labour vote has failed to grow. Your claim has simply not been borne out at the polling booth. In 1992, Labour received 1,142,911 votes; in 2001, Labour received 1,001,173 votes; and in 2010, Labour received 1,035,528 votes – fewer votes than the Tories received in 1964.
Unless, of course, you just happen to have those numbers in your head for the odd occasion when the factoids are required....
By historically, I was referring to my own timeline, as opposed to having Wikipedia ghost write for me. Thats the problem with the word historical, its precise meaning, regarding epoch being referred to, is rather subjective...
So, we have to go back to post-war Scotland for the last Unionist hurrah. No surprise there then... PS, dont think my father was even shaving then.....
And as for the last paragraph and a half.. I honestly think you saw a lot of numbers and copy/pasted.. What you are telling me is that I was talking pish, then appear to prove that Scotland voted Labour... The fact that the Tory vote dropped, with no balancing increase to Labour, means what you have done is determine the rise of Nationalism....
What was your point, caller??
