thorbotnic

Let's be honest, if LHR already had 5 runways and this proposal was to build a third at AMS, you'd be all for it. Or if the new runway was at DUB or CDG, for that matter. You don't support it because it's in England.

Aye, massively improved by not being in England.

Weighted by number of votes made in 2015 (ie SNP voters opinions have by far heaviest weighting)

I'm no labour supporter but I've been absolutely shocked by the PLP's arrogance towards their own party members. What the hell do they think they're playing at?

100% agreement. Tories are far too bone headed to ever realise it, though. O hold out some small hope for labour.

They don't give a shit about anywhere, really. NE Scotland won't be as hard hit as NE England, I don't think - nor does it deserve to be. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-the-north-of-england-will-regret-voting-for-brexit-a7101321.html

https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result has betfair at 1/12

Yes I'm not sure what odds he's looking at

Looks like a high turnout. A lot will depend on whether that's young or poor people voting (not that those are mutually exclusive traits)

Brings back memories of the Indy ref?

Right. So during the recent biggest Ebola outbreak in history, how many UK cases resulted from our dangerously lax, non-blood-testing immigration system? The UK gas been rabies free for ages - but we let in humans from countries with endemic rabies all of the time! What a nonsense.

What's a "sustainable level"? Unemployment is low; EU migrants work. It's a supply and demand situation: there isn't a 'fixed pie' of jobs and resources to go around. Also declining birth rates need to be offset.

How exactly would foreign humans transmit zoonoses to us indigenous Brits, then? I would say that the poster isn't racist but deliberately sets out to deceive. The column of refugees arriving in Slovenia has literally nothing to do with the EU.

Terrible piece of new labour social control legislation. I thought that had been refined in 2012? Anyway what I meant was it OUGHT not to be the state's business...

Its offensive and not funny. Well, not to me. What's terrifying is that the police are arresting people for being offensive - not inciting violence, but merely being offensive. It's none of the states business if someone's being offensive.

To quote the arresting officer: "Posting offensive material online or in any other capacity will not be tolerated". That's bloody terrifying.

I read that 40% of all PFI projects are in Scotland, which is astonishing. The system the SNP replaced it with isn't much better, apparently.

The latest TNS poll has constituency vote as: SNP: 56% (-4) LAB: 19% (-2) CON: 15% (+2) LDEM: 6% (+2) The SNP would win every FPTP seat in Scotland with that percentage, and thus an easy majority. Do they need yet more MPs from the list? I'd say no.

Well... they would be, right? Imagine if they'd been an independent country in 1970...

The SNP didn't win an overall majority because of the 44% list vote - they won because of the 45% constituency vote, and the effect of FPTP. They could quite conceivably win a majority without any list seats at all this time round.

I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems didn't win about 5 list seats overall. As they won't win any FPTP seats.

I think you're underestimating the effect of being dominant against a fractured opposition has in an FPTP situation. The SNP won nearly all FPTP seats in the last election when Labour was still polling 31% - with the situation now (say Tories and Labour both in low twenties) they won't win a thing. This means that an SNP list vote is a very weak vote in all regions - the Greens might not have a great shot, but you've got to ask whether the SNP would get (for eg) nine times as many list votes as them, anywhere? Unlikely.

Well yes, if you want the SNP to have a majority the best thing to do is to vote for them with both votes. But if you want a bigger, stronger majority of pro-independence MSPs, it may make more sense to vote green or for someone else on the list. Or if if you feel that the SNP represent, say 80% of what you stand for, but the other 20% is better represented by another party, you can split your ticket. It's an advantage of the 2-vote system. Personally I prefer coalition or minority governments anyway - keeps big parties honest(er).

It wouldn't be a straight PR result if the constituency seat / list seat split was 50%, either. Or rather it would be very unlikely to be. No party getting 50% of the list vote is going to get 50% of the list seats or the overall seats, regardless of how seats are divided between list and constituency.

You're very wrong there, I'm afraid. See the post by euan2020 above. The D'Hondt method gives a weighting to list votes according to how successful each party was in winning constituency seats - it doesn't divvy up list seats according to the proportion of list votes received. Basically it's a very hard system to 'game', but given that the SNP are certain to win virtually all constituency seats it does mean that a list vote for them is worth less than for other parties.