tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post473710581220718222..comments2023-05-01T16:14:04.382+01:00Comments on Scots and Independent: A Mandate To OpposeRichard Thomsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-8191013214703131302010-05-26T10:40:54.823+01:002010-05-26T10:40:54.823+01:00Anyone who argues that the government at Westminst...<i>Anyone who argues that the government at Westminster has no mandate is being anti democratic.</i><br /><br />No they are not, but in any case, that's not quite what I was arguing...<br /><br /><i>Labour would not have had a majority of the Scottish seats. So would we all be right to be civilly disobedient because they didn't have a mandate?</i><br /><br />My point throughout this piece is that a mandate is when you have a majority, whether in your own right or as a result of alliances built after the event. Who said anything about civil disobedience, anyway?<br /><br /><i>it right that the English should be treated as second class voters in their own land? How would we feel in those circumstances?</i><br /><br />No it isn't, and as I recall, a number of Scots felt pretty sore about being governed during the 80's and 90's by a party they had rejected. <br /><br /><i>If you want to run Scotland differently than England you must vote SNP.</i><br /><br />That's why I'm in the SNP.<br /><br /><i>All other positions are anti democratic.</i> <br /><br />Don't be silly.<br /><br /><i>Dave won.</i> <br /><br />No he didn't. He needs support from the Lib Dems to get a majority UK wide. <br /><br />Constitutionally he doesn't need a specific Scottish mandate to govern Scotland, but even together with the Lib Dems, that plurality of support isn't there - this, as I argue, may cause problems for his government down the line.<br /><br /><i>Get over it.</i><br /><br />There's nothing to get over. Them's the facts of the situation, like it or not.Richard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-83421286447712031522010-05-26T08:22:01.493+01:002010-05-26T08:22:01.493+01:00We have the ability in Scotland to elect a party w...We have the ability in Scotland to elect a party which is demcratic ( ie not armed ) and which advocates home rule. Anyone who argues that the government at Westminster has no mandate is being anti democratic. If you vote for a unionist party you are in favour of the union. In the United Kingdom the Conservatives and Liberals have a majority. They are elected, you have to accept their writ.<br /><br />The electoral system is a bit daft in the UK. even in Scotland Labour got 80% of the seats with 42% of the votes. If the system had been PR in the method used in the Scottish Parliament Labour would not have had a majority of the Scottish seats. So would we all be right to be civilly disobedient because they didn't have a mandate?<br /><br />England has not voted Labour at all. If we Scots were not in a union with them the Conservatives would have had a majority without the LibDems. Is it right that the English should be treated as second class voters in their own land? How would we feel in those circumstances?<br /><br />If you want to run Scotland differently than England you must vote SNP. All other positions are anti democratic. Dave won. Get over it.vendsymnoreply@blogger.com