10966
General Discussion / Re: The friendly and polite EU-related terrible jokes thread
« on: August 30, 2016, 01:16:41 am »Scotland's votes already count for shit.U wot
oh my goodness how wrong are you let me count the ways
Heck, if the Scotnat party had done a better job and Londonistaners not been so lazy, a very small number of Scots would have made 16 million more people lose the brexit run
All the following stats 'til the economic bit are from the BBC results pages for the various things.
You would've required an extra 634,751 Scots to have voted Remain in order for that to have influenced the result to have the slimmest margin of 2 people, a result everyone would've accepted I imagine.
Doesn't sound like much, but it would've meant 85% of Scots would've voted Remain. When was the last time 85% of anyone in the UK on political matters agreed? Even had 100% of Scotland voted Remain, the majority would've been 767,142, which is a little over half of what the result was, so it would've been ~51/49 split.
It's a bullshit argument anyway. If half as many Scots had voted Yes in 2014, we wouldn't be having this talk. Don't see you saying that's a problem though amirite?
Scotland's votes are disproportionately powerful, they have their own parliament and they get to have a say in what affects Englanders but not them
Due to the quirks of the Barnett formula - which is funny since Westminster could literally decide tomorrow to say "fuck that shit" and it would be entirely legal - pretty much any change in spending in England is going to affect funding for every other UK nation. However indirectly, English matters are going to affect them.
Instead of being sensible and setting up a separate English parliament though - like the aforementioned Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish ones, which deal solely with matters in those nations - the Tories have decided the best way to deal with this issue is to make non-English MPs second-class by denying them access to matters which solely affect England in the British parliament. Fantastic.
all teuchters, micks and sheep-shaggers welcome
Last general election it took just under 4 million votes to get 1 UKIP seat
300,000 votes per libdem seat
40,000 votes per Labour seat
34,000 votes per Tory seat
25,000 votes per scotnat seat
I like the way you set this out, failing to mention that the SNP only stood in 59 constituencies in Scotland - meaning they had access to an electorate of 4,094,784, of whom 71.1% voted, a little over 2.9m, of whom ~50% voted for the SNP - whereas UKIP stood in 624 seats, having access to... uh... more of the electorate.
But then that's not how the system works, is it? It's the results in the individual constituencies that matter. The Tories received 37% of the overall vote and received just over 50% of the seats, and a majority in parliament. They won 1 seat in Scotland. Kingmakers in their own fuckin' right there eh?
Then we could consider that Scotland has voted Labour every year since 1959 until the last GE in 2015. Their status as kingmaker meant there was an unprecedented 56 year long Labour reign, right? Oh wait, Labour were only ever in power when England voted for them. Right, sorry.
Let's look at things as a whole, though. There were 46,420,413 registered voters in the UK in 2015, for 650 parliament seats.
Scotland 9.07% of the seats, for their 8.8% share of the electorate, England has 82% of seats for their 83.59% of the electorate, Wales get 6.15% seats for their 4.9%, and N. Ireland 2.7% for 2.66%. Things seem to be alright in terms of proportion of votes.
English democratic will still outstrips that of the other three though. Still think Scotland is the kingmaker?
How the bloody hell is it possible to call the most valuable votes shite, literally the Kingmaker with the most powerful votes in every election
In conclusion:
wtf r u smoking i want sum
Scotland also generates more tax income per head than the rest of the UK, though I will accept that's 'cause of the oil, and the oil price decline did mess that up a bit.A bit? That's a bit of an understatement innit though lolQuotef Scotland had declared independence on 24 March – the day chosen by then SNP leader Alex Salmond before he lost the 2014 referendum campaign, its population would be facing an overall deficit of £2,850 per head in the 2016/17 financial year compared with £850 per head across the UK, the IFS said.So obviously what happens? Do the Scots cut their public spending? Lol no, the English foot the bill. I don't think anyone would give a shit if the likes of Sturgeon wasn't then going on to say fuck the English, they're gits and all, what with all those taxes they're giving Scots :|
With the recent collapse in oil prices, its analysis showed that if Scotland’s geographical share of oil tax receipts was included, the black hole in its annual accounts would reach £12.2bn in 2020 and then to £12.8bn in 2021, some 6% of its GDP.
Seriously cheeky to say we're taking more when it's simple maths. You spend more than you make, it's your m8s who pay the toll
Er... so does England. And N. Ireland. And Wales. And, if you'll excuse me, most of the effin' world.
What's your point? Scotland does it worse than the rUK?
The Tories were elected in 2010 when they said they were going to make massive cuts to gub'ment spending, while the SNP made no such promises, indeed quite the opposite, so you're comparing apples to oranges a wee bit there.
It would be nice if they could use the revenues to invest in other things.Scots want to cut education, healthcare and police funding? Never seen that in Scottish parliament nor seen that from Scots in Westminster
What are these "other things" that Scots can't choose to fund? If they want their own fleet of nuclear submarines it will never be, that always has to be in unity with the UK
wishful thinking leave me to muh fantasy
alternatively: link
Scotland having access to that trillion squid would be quite beneficial to them in the long run, I imagine. Could invest it in anything they bloody wanted. Like not paying for those lovely nuclear subs in the Clyde.
Unfortunately folk shat it in 2014, so they can wave that goodbye.
Alas, the purse strings are controlled elsewhere...You got evidence to back up conspiracies m8, cos I don't think Westminster would especially favour 5 million people over 60 + 5 million people
Thank you for so succinctly making my point.
