>Whoever England votes for, Scotland gets. We could've sent 59 Scottish Labour MPs to Westminster in each of the last three elections and it wouldn't have changed a thing, because England wanted a Conservative government.
In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government even if she somehow managed to establish a three-way power-sharing agreement with the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. In that event May probably wouldn't have been able to form a government, and there would have been new elections. And remember, May was in abysmal straits at the time.
> You're very carefully dodging the main point
Well, the 'point' wasn't a response to the existing conversation. It was a random interpolation, and I didn't find it very remarkable. In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies is likely to play a deciding role in the outcome. It will happen sometimes, but not often. But why would it be otherwise? Of course, if you start off with the belief that Scotland is an independent entity that merits complete self-determination, then that will be a problem. But that begs the question, again.
But that's contradicting the original point you were making about Scotland pulling the UK left isn't it? It sounds like you're saying "Scotland matters ... sometimes. Look, 20% of you helped elect Theresa May!"
That's not what we were talking about, which is that Scotland consistently votes to the left. And there is no way we can get a left-wing government, because England votes to the right. And it kind of doesn't matter that we seem to have picked the SNP, because even if we chose Labour it'd still not make a difference because England votes Tory and likely will do for the forseeable.
> In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies
This isn't a randomly selected bloc. This is very well defined and distinct territory - which is the topic of this ENTIRE article we're discussing might I add - so I don't know why you'd play daft and pretend otherwise.
I am going to keep my comments to a minimum because I think this is becoming an unproductive exchange.
> But that's contradicting the original point
You have said there's a contradiction, but have not said what it is. I have no idea what you think it is.
> Scotland consistently votes to the left. And there is no way we can get a left-wing government, because England votes to the right.
It is obviously possible for the UK to elect a left-wing government. I don't know why you think otherwise.
> This isn't a randomly selected bloc
My point is that there is no reason to expect a bloc of 59 constituencies to consistently decide the outcome of general elections. That is not in and of itself necessarily a problem. You need further, independent arguments to show why it is a problem for Scotland.
> You have said there's a contradiction, but have not said what it is. I have no idea what you think it is.
So you said Scotland moves the UK left. We said Scotland can't move the UK left, England is too Tory and too big. You said, but wait Scotland giving 13/59 seats to the Tories seats helped deliver Theresa May to victory. Wat.
> It is obviously possible for the UK to elect a left-wing government. I don't know why you think otherwise.
Again, that is entirely up to England and their best hope is Labour who don't seem particularly interested in either winning or shifting left. Hence our frustration.
> My point is that there is no reason to expect a bloc of 59 constituencies to consistently decide the outcome of general elections ... You need further, independent arguments to show why it is a problem for Scotland.
It would be weird if we "consistently decided" the outcome of elections, but I didn't say that. And please don't make me list all the reasons why Scotland isn't simply 59 constituencies, or even a region like Yorkshire. Absolutely no shade towards Yorkshire, it is a lovely place but I think we both know the difference.
I honestly think you might just be getting a kick out of winding up a Scot. If you were then, well I hope you had fun :) If not then I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a dick. This might be something that's more based on what you identify your nationality as. If you consider yourself as "British" first, and "English" second (or, as is common British which equals English) then what I am saying will obviously not resonate at all. For me my nationality is "Scottish" - "British" is just an entry in my passport, it's not a thing I feel I particularly identify with. I get the impression you're a leftie overall, so whatever happens re indyref2 I think we're on the same side.
In 2017, if Scotland didn't elect 13 Conservatives to Westminster then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government with the DUP. If it also didn't elect 4 Liberal Democrats then Theresa May would not have been able to form a government even if she somehow managed to establish a three-way power-sharing agreement with the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. In that event May probably wouldn't have been able to form a government, and there would have been new elections. And remember, May was in abysmal straits at the time.
> You're very carefully dodging the main point
Well, the 'point' wasn't a response to the existing conversation. It was a random interpolation, and I didn't find it very remarkable. In a Parliament of 650 seats no randomly selected bloc of 59 constituencies is likely to play a deciding role in the outcome. It will happen sometimes, but not often. But why would it be otherwise? Of course, if you start off with the belief that Scotland is an independent entity that merits complete self-determination, then that will be a problem. But that begs the question, again.