.... not only a Canadian phenomenom!

This bit of UK news gave me a giggle.

quote:

---

During a meeting that was taped, the Arundel and South Downs MP said that the scale of planned cuts was being concealed to help win an election. ... The Times reportedly obtained a tape recording of the remarks, made at a private meeting of the Thatcherite Conservative Way Forward Group on Wednesday.

---

OK, so maybe it's not fair that comments he thought were private were taped. But it might just show that even Conservatives were concerned about the cuts to services planned, since they would have to have been the ones leaking it.

Edit: Since there wasn't much to talk about in this thread, I thought I'd change it into a general UK election thread where anything goes.

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

The Lib Dems say they are "determined to be positive during the election" - but at what point will positive be too boring in comparison with the inflamatory comments of the other two? I like their platform generally (for this election) but I'm not sure it will get the headlines to be known.

As an aside, I'm curious as to what extent the "tribalistic" voting patterns will hold in this election with Labour ceasing to be an explicitly working class party, and the Cons trying to appeal to the working class from a right-wing, almost populist perspective (but Mr. Howard is still way too 'precious' to be populist IMHO).

Edited to increase my LQ. (link-quotient)

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

Anyhoo, I've decided to pull for the LibDems this time. They actually fit much more closely with my own personal political philosophy than any of the federal Canadian parties. Very curious that they've kind of morphed into a liberal-social-democratic party, albeit one without any historical ties to organized labour.

It's doubly interesting because historically most of the LibDems' growth potential has come from Tory marginals in southwest England, Surrey and the outer London suburbs. I was reading a column on the BBC website and someone expressed the view that the LibDems "have to walk a fine line" to try to appeal to dissatisfied Labour voters (often on the left of the party) while snagging Tory votes in the key marginals that will gain them more seats.

I tend to disagree, and I was wondering what anyone else thought of this theory.

My own view is that the LibDems are smart to run to the left. Historically, people tend to vote more for parties that campaign on the left but govern on the right. In Canada, *everyone* promises to spend more on health care, and the right ends up running for cover anytime there's a *hint* they might privatize.

I think that this time around, the LibDems' most fertile territory is to grab disaffected Labour voters and not spend a lot of time trying to convince people to switch from the Tories:
1) The Tories pretty much bottomed out in the last two elections, anyone who's still voting Tory is not likely to change and the Tories are moving up. A significant number Tory-LibDem switchers is unlikely, especially since those who want to toss out Labour are more likely to vote Tory since they're the main alternative. There's not a lot of Tory votes to be had.
2) Strategic voting is big in the UK, especially against Tories. There are a lot more pissed-off Labour voters out there this time rather than last time. A lot of them will stay at home, but a lot of them might be convinced to vote LibDem, especially in those key LibDem-Tory marginals. You won't get these folks out to the polls by sounding like ToryLite. But if you run to the left, you get all the Labour voters who are pissed off at Blair but don't want to see the party lose.

One area that I think the LibDems can really pick up upon is that of civil liberties. I think they've traditionally supported a large degree of political and individual freedom (I'm referring to flesh-and-blood individuals here, not legal-only individuals like corporations), and Labours' draconian laws and yet-to-be implementated proposals (like mandatory biometric i.d. cards) present a good opportunity for the LibDems to distinguish themselves from both Labour and the Cons. Also, I think a civil liberties platform (or featuring it) could attract both "tory marginals" and the left. Civil liberties have only become "left" due to the new security agenda of the right and 'centre', but they aren't intrinsically left, so that may be the way the LibDems can get a few p.o.'d Tories while still campaigning broadly from the left as they have.

Anyway, for those people who like political quizzes, I came across this one for the UK elections. It leaves out the smaller and regional parties, but it's still kind of interesting.

Oh, for what it's worth:
Labour -3
Tory -49
LibDem +61
UKIP -10
Green +34

Probably because I was neutral to too many questions that don't affect me in the slightest as an ex-pat.

[ 14 April 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

I notice their commentary on the EU constitution repeats a few common misconceptions but they're hardly alone in that.

Your actual outcome:

Labour 12
Conservative -37
Liberal Democrat 56
UK Independence Party -9
Green 36

Anti-choice?

Anti-gay?

Their language is even stronger than the NDP's.

Can somebody explain to me why Respect and Green are running separate candidates?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dokidoki:
Maybe Galloway is just Respect's Desjarlais?

---

to be precise, respect has a single MP (galloway) who is the MP for glasgow kelvin (he was ejected from labour). as far as i'm aware, they have one council seat nationwide (as opposed to 60 seats for the greens).

[ 19 April 2005: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

LIBDEM - 76
GREENS - 74
LABOUR - 5
UKINDP - -18
CONSEV - -50

Anyways here's my results. And I did expect Liberal Democrat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the bard:
The electionprediction webpage hasn't been updated for the UK election

---

I took that little test on the net, I got:
Labor: 1
Conservative: -62
Lib. Dem: 98
UKIP: 0
Green: 98

quote:

---

Mr Blair's plane has been hit by lightning before, during a trip to Washington.

---

I've found it very disheartening to follow the polls and coverage of the election so far, and see British voters by-and-large unwilling to punish Tony Bliar for what he did. Of course the Tories are no better, but I figured the Lib Dems would be at least over 25% in the polls, now.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Your expected outcome:
Green

Your actual outcome:

Labour 39
Conservative -34
Liberal Democrat 77
UK Independence Party -18
Green 79

---

Edited to add: Wow -- the Brits sure don't have town hall meetings like the Americans, do they? Do we even hold town halls in Canada's federal elections? I've never seen one that I recall.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: verbatim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:

Edited to add: Wow -- the Brits sure don't have town hall meetings like the Americans, do they? Do we even hold town halls in Canada's federal elections? I've never seen one that I recall.

[ 29 April 2005: Message edited by: verbatim ]

---

quote:

---

Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal.

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.
...
The minute revealed last night was of a meeting held in Downing Street on 23 July 2002. Signed by the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, Matthew Rycroft. It concluded: "We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any further decisions."

The minute records that the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had warned that the case against Saddam was "thin". He suggested that the Iraqi dictator should be forced into a corner by demanding the return of the UN weapons inspectors: if he refused, or the inspectors found WMD, there would be good cause for war.

---

quote:

---

TONY BLAIR is heading for a majority of between 90 and 100 seats on Thursday, according to an authoritative study that accurately predicted the outcome of the 1997 and 2001 elections.
The study, by Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, directors of the Elections Centre at Plymouth University, gives a predicted vote share of 37% for Labour, 34% for the Conservatives and 21% for the Liberal Democrats. This would give Labour a 96- seat majority on a uniform national swing.

It is backed up by the latest Sunday Times-YouGov poll, which also shows Labour three points ahead of the Tories, down one on last week. The YouGov findings, 36% for Labour, 33% for the Tories and 23% for the Lib Dems, would produce a majority of 92 if repeated on Thursday.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1593638,00.html

Greg Dyke, former BBC Director, has made extremely stinging criticisms of Tony Blair. (Dyke resigned after he said his position had been compromised by Lord Hutton's criticisms of BBC management. Parts of Andrew Gilligan's BBC reports of claims Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's illegal weapons were branded "unfounded" by Lord Hutton.)

quote:

---

“I do genuinely believe that our democracy has been undermined in the years since the Blair Government and I think another Blair Government would pose further dangers to our democracy.

“I believe what we have seen over eight years is the destruction of Cabinet government. Instead we have replaced it with a presidential system of government.

“I think that was made very clear by Mr Blair last week when he made it very clear it was his decision to go to war in Iraq, not his Cabinet.

“That’s not the democracy I’ve ever voted for.”

He said subsequently he realised the fateful BBC story was true – the dossier was “sexed up” and people inside Downing Street knew it was.

He said the Prime Minister should not have been allowed to get away with that.

“I read that this is the most supine Cabinet in history. That has to be the case.

“British government is based on the Cabinet holding the Prime Minister to account. We live in a system where the Prime Minister appoints them all.”

Mr Dyke, a Labour supporter for 40 years, pledged his allegiance this time to the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Dyke added: “We may have a situation where Labour get a significant majority with only 20% of the electorate voting for them. And that cannot sustain a democratic society.

“That’s not democracy, so I increasingly think we need some form of proportional representation.”

---

quote:

---

Despite being a lifelong Labour supporter, I have believed for a long time in the need for proportional representation. As an alternative socialist approach to economics has disappeared, we are seeing increasing convergence between the two main parties, and as both parties have to be bland to accommodate their broad churches of support, politics has increasingly lost its passion; and without passion, why should people join parties or even vote? It is all too easy to say, what difference does it make? Remember that even on something as contentious and unpopular as the Iraq war, the Tories voted with the Government.

The sad truth is that we cannot move on to a new politics where the views of the electorate can be more clearly delineated through proportional representation except by having a hung parliament and a Liberal Democrat leadership that sticks to its guns on this issue to give parliamentary support. I know Kennedy has said he will not form a coalition with any party, but there are ways that these things can be sorted out if the prize is good enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
there are a number of issues that i'm truly surprised didn't become election topics:

....
- europe

---

Results available here

Edited to add - on further review, the Lib Dems seem to be doing better than the Tories at picking up Labour's lost votes.

Also, the first non-English result is in, from Rutherglen & Hamilton West. Easy Labour hold, and again the Lib Dems are the only opposition party to gain much. Even the SNP is down in this riding.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: John_D ]

Other surprises? The Tories are no longer solely an English party, they've won a seat in Wales (Monmouth). Labour lost its second safest seat in the country to an independent. The Tories also picked up several extra seats around London. The Lib Dems won a couple of seats in the traditionally VERY Labour friendly industrial cities of the north (ie, Leeds North West and Manchester Withington. In the later, the swing from Labour to Lib Dem was 17.3%!)

edited to add: The Tories have also just won a seat in Scotland, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale, and Tweeddale.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: John_D ]

Anyway, here's the current projected share of the vote:

36% Labour
33% Conservative
23% Liberal Democrat
8% Others

In short, Labour have been immensely lucky when it comes to the vote splits in the constituencies.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

The Lib Dems just got a 30.7% swing from Labour in the London riding of Brent East. This is presumably a localized anti-war protest vote, given the size of the shift.

---

the green party did well in certain seats (brighton pavillion, lewisham, norwich south), and in glasgow, they tended to outpoll the SSP when running head to head.

quote:

---

Party Seats + - Net
LAB 353 0 47 -47
CON 196 36 3 +33
LD 60 16 5 +11

---

For a laugh, scroll down: What in the blue blazes is a 'Death' party?

edit: Ah, they sound like MRLP splitters:

quote:

---

• The Prime Minister and Michael Howard may have all sorts of complicated plans to deal with the immigrant problem. Not so Damien Fleck, standing in the City of York under the banner of the Death Dungeons and Taxes Party.

His manifesto, covering one side of a scroll, says that immigrants will be repelled with boiling oil and longbows at all ports and airports, according to the York Evening Press.

---

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:

reg keys, whose son was killed in iraq, ran as an independent in sedgefield (tony blair's riding), and he won over 10% of the vote. in the televised, after-the-vote-count-is-announced speeches, he really ripped a strip off tony blair.

---

quote:

---

Reg Keys: "If this war had been justified by international law, I would have grieved and not campaigned. If weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq -- again I would have grieved, not campaigned. Tonight there are lessons to be learned. I hope in my heart that one day the prime minister may be able to say sorry. That one day he will say sorry to the families of the bereaved. And one day the prime minister may be able to visit wounded soldiers in hospital ... Now I can go to my son's grave with my head held high and say, 'At least I tried.'"

---

BNP supporters also clashed with other supporters from other parties at the electoral count in glasgow. mohammad sarwar (the UK's first muslim MP when elected in 1997) convinced the 8 other non-BNP candidates to not share the stage with them when the results were announced.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]

quote:

---

BNP leader Nick Griffin is standing in nearby Keighley, which has a significant Asian community. The BNP there has made allegations that young Asian men have recruited young white girls for prostitution. It’s an issue which is being investigated, but for the BNP it’s just a golden opportunity to drive a wedge into the community and spread its racism. Griffin gave a media conference on the Keighley issue before the local elections last year using a pub in Calderdale, ironically named The Friendly, for the event. Journalists were given a preview of an election video made by the BNP in Keighley, with interviews with ‘ordinary’ local people, expressing their concerns. The ordinary people were well-known to anti-fascist campaigners: they were experienced BNP activists and officers. Keighley is partly in the Bradford district. Four BNP candidates were elected to Bradford District Council in local elections last year, giving Griffin the foothold he wanted.

---

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1478074,00.html

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Stockholm, why don't you scroll back up a bit and read Drinkmore's summary of SNP policies? They are not an "ethnic nationalist" party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
In Bethnal Green, Labour MP Oona King has lost to George Galloway.

---

quote:

---

Oona King was deposed as the MP after former Labour MP Mr Galloway forced a 26.2% swing in his favour, following a bitterly fought campaign.

Mr Galloway, who attacked Tony Blair in his acceptance speech, fought on an anti-Iraq war manifesto which appealed to the large local Muslim population.

Ms King was one of Tony Blair's most loyal supporters and backed the war.

Taking to the podium after his victory was announced, Mr Galloway said: "Mr Blair, this defeat is for Iraq and the other defeats that New Labour has received this evening are for Iraq.

"All the people you have killed and all the loss of life have come back to haunt you and the best thing that the Labour Party can do is sack you tomorrow morning."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But look, Scotland now has its own assembly with powers like a Canadian province (a huge advance from the system before where Scotland was ruled directly by the Scottish office in London). The SNP has what it wanted, now why don't they just disband.

---

quote:

---

If Scottish nationalists are supporting progressive policies then they should be supported. It sets up a dynamic of competitive federalism, where people in the north of England wonder why Scotland can have free education when Blair says it's impossible.

---

quote:

---

Its because Scotland is ruled by a coalition of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

---

It. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Anyone. Ruling. Anything.

If Scots support progressive policies, that is because Scots are overwhelmingly at least moderately progressive. Got it, Stockholm?

The Labour Party is generally considered a drag by activists, and you can see that in the results. Until recently, the SSP was looking promising for the future, and support for them is still substantial, in spite of their internal problems.

That map is interesting. Click on Angus, to the east, and the Dundee seats. (Dundee is one of the oldest and toughest of the old industrial cities.)

Highlanders are mostly not conservative, Stockholm. Put the SNP, Labour, LibDem, and SSP votes together -- that look like a conservative group to you?

The haute-Tory area was traditionally the Borders, and maybe parts of cities like Stirling, which, as you can see, has gone Labour (for some time now). Dumfriesshire is Borders and went Con, but Berwickshire went LibDem, as did West Edinburgh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
one thing for sure is that the projection is wrong; labour didnt win anything close to a majority of 60 seats, they only got 30 something more than needed for a majority.

---

The results in Wales, to me, are more interesting than those in Scotland. The Conservatives really made a breakthrough there, grabbing 3 of the 40 seats (keep in mind how regionalized the Tory seats had been before, and getting 3 in Wales is a major victory for them there. It makes them seem a lot less like a strictly "Middle England" party). The Lib Dems also picked up 2 extra seats, including one in Cardiff, and Labour fell back from 34 to 29. The nationalists didn't do nearly as well here as they did in Scotland, either - Plaid Cymru ended up losing a seat (to the LDs) and missing their top target for a pickup. Any theories as to why Scottish nationalism is doing so much better than Welsh, seemingly? And why the Tories made up so much more ground in Wales than Scotland?

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But the SNP is hardly a socialist party.

---

Well, that's what I thought but when I did this survey, I got this result:

quote:

---

Labour -1
Conservative -17
Liberal Democrat 29
UKIP -12
Green 33
Scottish National Party 39
Scottish Socialist Party 35

You should vote: Scottish National Party The SNP is broadly left of centre. It supports the Euro as being the national currency rather than sterling, but does not support the European Constitution in its current form. The party supports progressive taxation, student grants and the abolition of tuition fees. The SNP approach on soft drugs is more relaxed with a focus on treatment rather than punishment of hard drug users. It supports debt relief and CO2 emission reductions.

---

Everything else aside, I couldn't support Labour, because of the Iraq war. This site pegs LDP to the right of SNP and in fact gives me an SNP score close to SSP. Go figure.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Drinkmore ]

quote:

---

Any theories as to why Scottish nationalism is doing so much better than Welsh, seemingly? And why the Tories made up so much more ground in Wales than Scotland?

---

Actually Scottish nationalism isn't doing very well at all. The SNP only took 18% of the vote in Scotland - a decline of 3% from 2001. Their seat total went from 4 to 6 (out of 60), but only because in a couple of seats their vote stayed the same while there was a big shift from the Labour Party to the LibDems and the SNP came up the middle.

The SDLP has made only minor gains and Sinn Fein has held its own. I fear Northern Ireland is becoming more and more polarized and extremist positions on both sides are gaining popularity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Notice something interesting about that collection of parliamentarians?

---

There are interesting things happening in Wales, I suspect -- more interesting than what one might have taken from Stockholm's (usual) reductionism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What's good about people voting for ethnic nationalism??? I'm glad to see the LibDems do better by getting some of the protest vote against Labour in Scotlanbd, but in my opinion, the world would be a better place isf ethnic nationalist parties like the SNP would shrivel up and die.

---

One thing I find amusing is how some Canadians who are probably one 16th Scottish and whose families have been on this side of the ocean for 200 years, suddenly decide that it is chic to be a big Scottish nationalist and talk about the virtues of the SNP. Meanwhile over in Scotland, the SNP only wins a paltry 17% of the vote and has been steadily losing support with each election. 83% of Scots prefer to vote for NATIONAL UK-wide parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why don't you tell us what YOU know.

One thing I find amusing is how some Canadians who are probably one 16th Scottish and whose families have been on this side of the ocean for 200 years, suddenly decide that it is chic to be a big Scottish nationalist and talk about the virtues of the SNP. Meanwhile over in Scotland, the SNP only wins a paltry 17% of the vote and has been steadily losing support with each election. 83% of Scots prefer to vote for NATIONAL UK-wide parties.

I have more faith in what Scottish people in Scotland think about the SNP than do in some Scottish-Canadian wannabes think who probably dress up their kilts and sporrans once a year and put on a fake Scottish accent!

---

Ah, Stockholm?

SLB's advice was more than usually wise; and your response more than usually asinine.

1. The Tories are so moribund in Scotland that apart from maybe one or two ridings - no one in Scotland seriously worries about the Tories winning any seats on a split vote.

2. In the elections for the Scottish Assembly the have proportional representation - no need to fear any vote splitting and whoever you elect has a chance to rule over Scotland. Result: a similarly miserable 18 or 19% for the SNP.

I know that a lot of middle class leftists in Canada get swept away by the romance of "Viva la revolution ethnic nationalism" - they they think it it would be cute if more Scottish people starting pushing to be independent and they like the idea of joing the "struggle".

quote:

---

I know that a lot of middle class leftists in Canada get swept away by the romance of "Viva la revolution ethnic nationalism" - they they think it it would be cute if more Scottish people starting pushing to be independent and they like the idea of joing the "struggle".

---

quote:

---

Yeah, that's the thing, isn't it, aRoused. Call a party a "national party," and Stockholm the fundamentalist concludes it's the BNP.

---

I never equated the SNP with the BNP. That's not my point.

The only point I'm making - which no one seems to want to address - is that I philosophically have an intense dislike of parties that are based on an appeal to nationalism or tribalism. I reject, the SNP, I reject Plaid Cymru, I reject all the parties in northern Irelanbd except the small Alliance Party and maybe the SDLP, I reject the Basque nationalist parties in Spain, I reject the BQ/PQ and if you can think of any other etnnically based parties in the world, I'm sure I reject them too.

To me when people start voting purely on the basis of their ethnicity/nationalsity - its bad news for humanity.

I prefer people to vote for parties that do NOT attempt to appeal to nationalism. I like parties that openly want votes from people of all races, all religions, all parts of the country, all nationalities.

I consider myself to be more of a citizen of the world than anything else and I think the world would be a better place if people identifies themselves more as humans and less as members of a tribe.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
OK, then why don't you tell us. Why do 83% of Scottish voters totally reject the SNP and prefer to vote Labour or LD or even Conservative?

---

Do you not notice the extraordinary irony in this, Stockholm? Hell, you can replace the word Scottish with Canadian, and SNP with another three letter party (you'd only need to change the S to a D), you wouldn't even need to change the percentage! Does that make the NDP a lost cause, Stockholm?
On edit - I see Skdadl has already covered this angle. Still, I reckon it bears repeating for the hilarious irony therein.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

quote:

---

With a majority of only 66, just 34 rebels could stop him in his tracks, if supported by the opposition parties.

. . .there are 37 hard-core rebels (who rebelled on all four key issues in the last Parliament, including student tuition fees, foundation hospitals, Iraq, and the prevention of terrorism act), and another 29 soft rebels, who voted against the government on at least two of those four issues.

---

2. Stockholm, isn't what you are saying below a tad ironic for a Zionist?

quote:

---

The only point I'm making - which no one seems to want to address - is that I philosophically have an intense dislike of parties that are based on an appeal to nationalism or tribalism. I reject, the SNP, I reject Plaid Cymru, I reject all the parties in northern Irelanbd except the small Alliance Party and maybe the SDLP, I reject the Basque nationalist parties in Spain, I reject the BQ/PQ and if you can think of any other etnnically based parties in the world, I'm sure I reject them too.

To me when people start voting purely on the basis of their ethnicity/nationalsity - its bad news for humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The British Labour Party is not some colonizing English Party that just wants to subjugate Scotland. In fact many of its leading figures are Scottish!

---

Oh, barf. Oh, triple barf. Oh, quintuple barf.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
There are two simple answers to that.

2. In the elections for the Scottish Assembly the have proportional representation - no need to fear any vote splitting and whoever you elect has a chance to rule over Scotland. Result: a similarly miserable 18 or 19% for the SNP.

One small problem. The vast majority of Scottish people who actually live in Scotland have no interest in Scotland becoming an independent country and have no use for the SNP.

---

Scottish Parliamentary Election Results 1999

Labour
Constituency vote - 38.8%
Regional vote - 33.6%

56 MSPs

SNP
Constituency vote - 28.7%
Regional vote - 27.3%
35 MSPs

Scottish Green Party
(explicitly support an independent Scotland)
1 MSP

Scottish Socialist Party
(explicity support an independent Scotland)
1 MSP

Number of Scottish MSPs who favour independence - 37 MSPs.

Percentage of voters supporting pro-independence candidates -
Constituency vote - 29.75%
Regional vote - 32.84%

2003 Parliamentary Election Results

Labour
Constituency vote - 34.9%
Regional vote - 29.3%
50 MSPs

SNP
Constituency vote - 23.8%
Regional vote - 20.9%
27 MSPs

Scottish Green Party
(explicitly support an Independent Scotland)
7 MSPs

Scottish Socialist Party
(explicitly support an Independent Scotland)
6 MSPs

Independent Nationalist
1 MSP

Number of Scottish MSPs who favour independence - 41 MSPs.

Percentage of voters supporting pro-independence candidates -
Constituency vote - 29.99%
Regional vote - 35.86%

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
My question is why Scottish voters keep on so massively spurning the only party that explicitly favours Scottish independence?

---

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

'The SSP is a pro-independence party which stands for the break-up of the British state and the creation of a free Scottish socialist republic.'

http://www.answers.com/topic/scottish-green-party-1

'The Scottish Green Party is generally said to support Scottish independence, but recent manifesto commitments have only extended to further powers for the Scottish parliament. Certain MSPs, such as Patrick Harvie of Glasgow, have however been vocal in their individual support for independence.'

So - two explicitly pro-independence parties, one likely, depending on which of their representatives you ask. Either way, all three are nationalist parties, and between the three of them, plus independent nationalists such as Margo MacDonald, they've seen the nationalist cause grow in Holyrood, both in popular vote, and in seats.

Sorry, Stockholm, I wouldn't know how to answer such a false premise as your question. Like, I say - stick to what you know. I try to.

[ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]