| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Phil Thomas
King
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 758
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| AWIC wrote: | [quote="
On the political side, what would happen if there were a multi-option referendum that resulted in:
Status Quo - 34%
More powers - 33%
Full independence - 33%?
|
OK a Highly Selective quote from AWIC
The answer of course depends upon whether its a FPTP referendum or an AV referendum.
Comments anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AMcHarg
King
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 623
Location: Livingston, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Thomas wrote: | | AWIC wrote: | [quote="
On the political side, what would happen if there were a multi-option referendum that resulted in:
Status Quo - 34%
More powers - 33%
Full independence - 33%?
|
OK a Highly Selective quote from AWIC
The answer of course depends upon whether its a FPTP referendum or an AV referendum.
Comments anyone? |
AV is even more appropriate in this scenario than in a normal election because the options in this case change from yes to no incrementally (if you get what I mean - too tired to work out a better way of wording it). It's hard to see how the status quo could win in the above scenario given that those who voted for independence almost definately would want more powers if independence was not the winner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Howie
Bishop
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 28
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Thomas wrote: | | AWIC wrote: | [quote="
On the political side, what would happen if there were a multi-option referendum that resulted in:
Status Quo - 34%
More powers - 33%
Full independence - 33%?
|
OK a Highly Selective quote from AWIC
The answer of course depends upon whether its a FPTP referendum or an AV referendum.
Comments anyone? |
I'd argue that it's totally flawed either way as it's not giving people the option of voting for reduced power, or totally dissolving the Scottish Parliament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AMcHarg
King
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 623
Location: Livingston, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek Howie wrote: | | I'd argue that it's totally flawed either way as it's not giving people the option of voting for reduced power, or totally dissolving the Scottish Parliament. |
The referendum is ultimately on independence though, it's just that additional options between the status quo and independence will give more scope for people to vote for what they actually want rather than vote against what they least want. The people have already voted for where the Scottish Parliament currently stands so why should it be added to the mix to vote that away again when there isn't any cross-party support for it?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HughBrechin
King
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 201
Location: The moral high ground.
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's hard to see how the status quo could win in the above scenario given that those who voted for independence almost definately would want more powers if independence was not the winner. |
True, but equally it's hard to see how independence could win with those numbers, given that those who voted for the status quo would almost certainly prefer more powers to full independence. The worry I'd have would be that not everybody, even under AV, would bother filling in a full set of preferences (which happens a lot), and we'd end up with, say, independence winning with 44% of votes cast, which could pose a few problems. There would be ways to get round this problem, but on the whole I think making sure neither 'yes' nor 'no' could possibly win with less than 50%, by making it a simple binary choice, would be advisable.
I'm pretty sceptical about the whole idea of the multi-option referendum on this issue - the more-powers-for-a-devolved-Scotland thing is a different and much more complex issue, and should in my opinion either be resolved by the people we elect to resolve such things, or be part of a totally separate referendum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMB
King
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 267
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DGCongalton wrote: | | Why should Chess Scotland receive government funding at all, no matter who's in Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels? Why should an organisation that has only 370 paid up members, according to the recently published Chess Scotland budget, receive government support? |
That figure of 370 is incorrect - current membership is about 580.
The figure and breakdown of membership by category is tabulated by membership secretary Dick Heathwood in his monthly report on the section of the noticeboard headed "Membership" - see the April figures here. http://www.chessscotland.com/membership/Apr2011.pdf
The figures in the budget relates to expected income from various membership categories. Members with mag is included within the magazine "sales" figure. Life member numbers are excluded from any membership count in the budget since they have already made their one off payment.
Presumably the intention of the comment was to suggest that an organisation with such a tiny membership doesn't deserve govt grants. Whether 580 is massively more impressive in that regard than 370 is open to debate.
I'll guess again that the flavour of the comment was to suggest that players are not supporting the organisation by joining.
Here's some current figures from the grading data up to last weekend.
Of the 109 adults with 30 or more games this season the membership figure is 90 (82.5%). That is an incredibly high figure for a voluntary tax. So the services that CS is providing must be perceived as of value to these players.
643 adults have played 8 or more games so far this season of which 303 are members (47.12%).
532 juniors have 8 or more games this season of which 92 are members (17.3%).
Of the 113 juniors j12 or older 57 are members (50.4%).
The implication of the above is that we already have got a very high % of all the "easy" memberships. Any member drive would be targeted at adults who dont play much or for whom the services are of little interest. At junior level we have hundreds of j11s and younger - but they could be playing something else other than chess next week. The few juniors who stay with game as teenagers have a good strike rate of membership.
Players do support the association - the problem is that chess is very much a minority pursuit in Scotland. CS is set up that we could cope with numbers increasing many times over but people have other things now to do with their leisure time. There are 800-900 fewer adults currently playing than in the peak years of the mid 1990s - despite CS services currently available being massively superior to anything enjoyed in that period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AMcHarg
King
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 623
Location: Livingston, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DMB wrote: | | There are 800-900 fewer adults currently playing than in the peak years of the mid 1990s - despite CS services currently available being massively superior to anything enjoyed in that period. |
Ironically the technology which allows CS to offer better services is probably the same technology which diverts many would-be OTB players to online Chess sites instead of Chess clubs. 
To me there isn't a more thrilling way of playing Chess than playing OTB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Howie
Bishop
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 28
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AMcHarg wrote: |
The referendum is ultimately on independence though, it's just that additional options between the status quo and independence will give more scope for people to vote for what they actually want rather than vote against what they least want. |
So if it's about independence then make it a yes or no. If it's about giving people more scope for what they want then give all the options. Surely it's better to give the people all the options if you are proceeding with it, rather than limiting their choice?
| AMcHarg wrote: |
The people have already voted for where the Scottish Parliament currently stands so why should it be added to the mix to vote that away again when there isn't any cross-party support for it?
|
Surely people should be allowed to vote on it after seeing it in practice? Are you suggesting because the decision was made once that people should never get the chance to review that decision?
Cross party support? It's a bit of the turkeys and Christmas scenario. Realistically parties are not going to support the reduction of powers in or abolition of something that they are trying to stand for, and meanwhile a section of the population are being disenfranchised.
If there is an insistence on going ahead with the referendum then why not see what the country really thinks of the Parliament instead of presenting then with a loaded ballot paper? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AMcHarg
King
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 623
Location: Livingston, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek Howie wrote: |
If there is an insistence on going ahead with the referendum then why not see what the country really thinks of the Parliament instead of presenting then with a loaded ballot paper? |
Well I can't think of any other reasons why not to have these additional options. It doesn't bother me; I trust democracy. I think there is more support in the direction of more powers than there is in the other direction.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AWIC
King
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AMcHarg wrote: | | It's hard to see how the status quo could win in the above scenario given that those who voted for independence almost definately would want more powers if independence was not the winner. |
I'm not sure that necessarily follows. Plenty of people in the recent referendum voted to retain FPTP because they believed that this would make their ultimate aim of STV more likely.
A similar argument was used to vote against the reinstitution of the Scottish Parliament in the 1997 referendum by some of those who favoured independence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AWIC
King
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I understand the debate correctly, it would appear that we ordinary Joes (no offence, JR  ) are perfectly capable of understanding the motivations of millionaire cabinet ministers despite never having met them or been in Government, yet these same people cannot appreciate our existences without having met us or experienced our lifestyles. Is that a fair point?
Also, in the dual question referendum scenario, what happens the questions are answered thus:
"Do you want Independence?" "Yes"
"Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" "No"?
(This brings to mind a Josh rant in the West Wing, but the actual cirsumstances escape me).
Finally, for now, regarding the Election. An "epic" result, I agree, but despite cousin Glenn describing it as a "landslide" I still don't agree that the majority is massive (albeit large enough). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnmcbride
Queen
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If I understand the debate correctly, it would appear that we ordinary Joes (no offence, JR ) are perfectly capable of understanding the motivations of millionaire cabinet ministers despite never having met them or been in Government, yet these same people cannot appreciate our existences without having met us or experienced our lifestyles. Is that a fair point? |
I don't pretend to fully understand the motivations of millionaire cabinet ministers, I just see how some behave. (I repeat not all) I also don't pretend, without having lived their lives, to appreciate how life is for them.
However, I am not a elected paid member of Parliament and it is not my job to understand how life is for self made, or people born into wealth. It is however, their job to understand the lives of the people of the UK. They are elected and paid to represent the people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Deary
Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AWIC wrote: |
Finally, for now, regarding the Election. An "epic" result, I agree, but despite cousin Glenn describing it as a "landslide" I still don't agree that the majority is massive (albeit large enough). |
I disagree, in 2007 Labour had a majority of 95 seats at Westminster with a rather small percentage of the vote 35.2% (considering the majority they gained). Compare this to the SNP victory:
Gaining 45.4% is an unheard of percentage of the vote in a UK election so I would agree that it was an epic result. It is the design of the Scottish electoral system which resulted in the majority being so small. Lets not forget it is regarded as being designed to stop one party ever gaining an outright majority.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian McLachlan
Rook
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 63
Location: Lanark
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Deary wrote: | | Gaining 45.4% is an unheard of percentage of the vote in a UK election ....... |
Only if you're young! In the 50s governments were generally elected with close to 50% of the vote. That % declined because the share of the vote for the Liberals/LibDems and other minor parties increased, although that was not reflected in the number of seats they won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AWIC
King
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Deary wrote: |
Gaining 45.4% is an unheard of percentage of the vote in a UK election so I would agree that it was an epic result. It is the design of the Scottish electoral system which resulted in the majority being so small. Lets not forget it is regarded as being designed to stop one party ever gaining an outright majority. |
Without wanting to let pesky facts get in the way of what has been an entertaining discussion, 45.4% is heard of - for example the Conservatives won 46.4% of the vote in the 1970 UK General Election.
I see you agree that the majority was small  .
One might wonder why, with a minority of the votes (albeit the largest minority), the SNP has a majority in the first place...
Anyway, I'm off out. When Hugh posts, I'll probably agree with him
edit - I see Ian has beaten me to it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
