thorbotnic's Content - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

thorbotnic

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    253

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Tartan Army Message Board News

Media Demo

Posts posted by thorbotnic

    Heathrow expansion

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    On 27/10/2016 at 9:40 AM, Alibi said:

    Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion.  Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak.  We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues.  You have to disembark and change stations in London.  I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow.  In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond.  The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due.

    With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on?

    The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves.  If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is?  I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub?  Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism?  It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails.

    Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one.  Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think.

     

    On 27/10/2016 at 9:40 AM, Alibi said:

    Although I am an SNP member, I disagree strongly with their open support for the Heathrow expansion.  Leaving aside the electoral damage that is likely from any impression of the SNP halping the Tories out of a hole, the argument that expanding Heathrow is good for Scotland is imho very weak.  We were told when the channel tunnel was being built and partly funded by us that it was good for Scotland; more than 20 years later we still don't have direct rail links to Europe; not even a direct link that stops in London and then continues.  You have to disembark and change stations in London.  I very much doubt Scotland has gained any jobs at all from that so-called "national" infrastructure project, and ijn the real world the same will be the case with Heathrow.  In fact it's probably a negative effect as the project will further skew the UK economy towards the SE of England while reducing the likelihood of proper DIRECT links to Europe and beyond.  The additional cost to Scottish residents and others of having to disembark, change terminals and re-embark must be significant, and in addition two lots of APD are due.

    With England heading for the EU exit and Scotland likely to remain in the EU in the longer term, do we really want to be filtered through a non-EU hub with all the problems that that would cause in terms of visas and so on?

    The SNP should have stood back and let the Tories fight this one out themselves.  If there is to be an airport expansion near London, does it really matter that much where it is?  I don't accept the argument that there is a promise of more landing slots for flights from Scotland with the Heathrow scheme as firstly, we know what happens to these vows, and so the more lucrative long haul flights would undoubtedly squeeze out any Scottish routes with some feeble excuse being given, and secondly, do we really want Scotland to be treated as a minor region that sets itself up as merely a feeder to London's international hub?  Should we not be trying to maximise our own direct connectivity to the rest of the world and stop filtering everything through a Londoncentric prism?  It would be better if a major hub is necessary to make it Schiphol which already has 6 runways and in my experience is a far better airport to use; it is also at the heart of Europe, and that would send out a strong message rather than this decision which smacks of trying to cling on to London's coat tails.

    Very disappointed with the SG's stance on this one.  Not to the extent of cancelling my membership but I will certainly let my MP and MSP know what I think.

    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.

    EU Referendum

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Bristolhibby said:

    It was the only time recently where they have had democratic control.

    Keep wondering if the UK has proportional representation (where every vote counts) those who are genuinely disenfranchised (UKIP voters getting one MP), would have had their voices heard in Parliment and would have felt less inclined to "watch Rome burn" and protested last Thursday.

    It would have also heralded a new type of concensus politics.

    J

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

    EU Referendum

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 minute ago, vanderark14 said:

    I wouldn't worry, over the next two years the negotiations will show that boris and his pals don't give a about the northeast of Scotland. The fishing industry won't return like they expect it to and Scotland will again get shafted. 

     

     

    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

     

    EU Referendum

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 hour ago, girvanTA said:

    You do know zoonoses can be transfered from animals to humans and humans can easily transfer and carry the ebola virus and other diseases.

    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.

    EU Referendum

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, thplinth said:

    Immigration is a big topic because when Labour and Blair got elected it was ramped up to completely unsustainable levels.

    article-2514866-19B1F1BE00000578-350_634

    This latest year is the (edit second) biggest ever with a net 330,000 coming in. 

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199

    And these numbers are very likely suppressed with the number of folk being much higher.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271390

    Keep going with the 'let's smear everyone who flags it up as a problem as a racist' tactics. Then when these folk finally say fukk it and actually start voting for real right wing parties them you will have no one to blame but yourselves. You dont allow the debate on immigration to even exist so hell mend you when you get the consequences of that. It will not be today but it is on its way big time. You can see it all over Europe and it is down to you twats no one else.

    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. 

    EU Referendum

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, girvanTA said:

    What race did he offend with the poster? The poster itself is a refection on what is happening in the world today. Its not racist, perhaps tasteless to the bleeding heart liberals but racist no.

    Blood testing foreigners:- To limit the transfer of zoonoses, pathogens  blood borne disease is a bad thing? 

     

    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.

    Nazi dog

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

    Uploading a video online to the general public and making a dog appear to give Nazi salutes by lifting it's paw is one thing

    Uploading a video online to the general public and make the dog to react by continually chanting  "Do you want to go gas some Jews" is another.

    I see he has posted an apology video where he says it was just a joke and he is not racist in any way shape or form

    Having the imbecilic mindset that would even make you consider saying to a dog "Do you want to gas some Jews" suggests otherwise

     

    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.

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Orraloon said:

    In 2011 SNP won all 10 constituencies in the North East region and still managed to get a list seat as well. 

    It can be done but that's not the main reason why it's  important for SNP voters to give SNP both votes. The main reason is as a back up in case they lose one or two constituencies in any of the regions. They won't win all  the constituencies. If they lose a constituency seat they are far more likely than the Greens to pick up a list seat.

    I predict that the Greens won't win any seats outside of Lothian and Glasgow. 

     

    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.

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    2 hours ago, aaid said:

     

    Any system that has a either a constituency or regional element is going to have potential for an element of variance, e.g. a party that polls 60% in one region and 40% in another region may not pick up 50% of the seats in both regions depending on the arithmetic in each region.  It will however be a lot more proportional that straight FPTP which could conceivably see that party win every seat.

    However what skews the result is the 73/56 split between constituency and list seats as this can result in the SNP breaking the system by winning an overall majority with 44% of the list vote as happened in 2011.

    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.

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    29 minutes ago, aaid said:

    I think you are probably right and even were the Greens capable of picking up a list seat in every region they would have no chance of picking up a second seat.

    The other thing to factor in is that depending on the regional arithmetic, the Lib Dems could manage to scrape the odd seat in the regional lists.  I'm not being so stupid to predict a Lib Dem revival but I think they probably bottomed out in 2011.

     

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

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

    In most of the regions the Greens need a huge number of extra votes (compared to to 2011) to get anywhere near a regional seat. Moving some regional votes from SNP to Green is just as likely to result in an extra Unionist MSP as it is to get a Green MSP. I think that in most regions the SNP have more chance of winning a regional seat than the Greens even if the SNP have already won all the constituency seats in that region. But only if the SNP can convince their core voters that they need both their votes. 

     

    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. 

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

    I think the maximum constituencies they will win is 68 and they could easily slip up in a few of those. So, I think they will need a few list seats as well. So, as far as the SNP is concerned, the list votes are just as important and as valuable to them as to anybody else. I know you might hope that SNP voters will give their regional vote to somebody else, but the SNP message needs to be very simple. "The SNP need your constituency vote and also your regional vote if you want the SNP to have a majority",

    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).

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, aaid said:

    Yeah, I get that, in my second sentence I mention the constituency seats skewing what would be a straight PR result.  The D'Hondt system in use in Scotland tries to address this somewhat but not to the same extent as they do in places like Germany where seats are reallocated in order to balance it out.

    I agree about it being a hard system to game though.

    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. 

    Holyrood predictions

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted · Edited by thorbotnic

    4 hours ago, aaid said:

    I'm sorry but you've got that completely wrong.  AMS is not a second preference system like STV, it is a system designed to give as near as possible a proportional share of the seats based on the list vote.  So if a party gets 50% of the list vote they should broadly  get 50% of the seats.

    Of course the modified system and the fact that there are 73 FPTP seats and 56 list seats skews that as it means that if a party has national support across the board of 50.1% they will at the minimum win all the constituency seats.  That's a flaw in the current system - arguably constructed to avoid the current state of the parties occurring - although nowhere near as bad as Westminster.

    None of that changes the fact though that AMS is fundamentally not a "second choice" system.  

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...