Sturgeon to resign as FM

[ProfessorDavey]

In Westminster terms, the phrase you used, there is no difference.

In Westminster terms in Scotland - i.e. Scottish Westminster seats - even if you were confused about my original phrasing (I don't believe you were) I have clarified this many times.

I am talking about Scottish Westminster seats - happy to discuss this but bored of you misrepresenting my clear clarification that as I am discussing politics in Scotland I am discussing Scottish Westminster seats - you know the 59 that the SNP contest.

[jeremyp]

Err - the SNP only contest 59 seats so their results elsewhere are, obviously, not relevant as there are no results.

In Scotland (clearly this is the 'state' I was discussing) in the 3 elections she has fought the SNP have won between 60% and 95% of the seats they contested.

And actually that is clear in the tone of her speech - she, along with the SNP and before her Salmond have dominated politics in Scotland in a manner that hasn't been replicated in other parts of the UK. Her speech came across as the words of the overwhelmingly dominant force (her) within the overwhelmingly dominant force (the SNP) in Scottish politics.

If the state you are talking about is Scotland, then the elections you should be talking about are those of the Scottish Parliament. It's difficult to argue Scotland is a one party state when the ruling party doesn't even command a majority of the seats.

[ProfessorDavey]

In Westminster terms they have about 8% of seats.

But that is what I am talking about as I have made very, very clear - stop misrepresenting me.

What proportion of Scottish Westminster seats does the SNP currently hold. And while we are at it (to compare apples with apples) what proportion of constituency seats in Holyrood does the SNP currently hold.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is what I am talking about as I have made very, very clear - stop misrepresenting me.

What proportion of Scottish Westminster seats does the SNP currently hold. And while we are at it (to compare apples with apples) what proportion of constituency seats in Holyrood does the SNP currently hold.

In what way is saying that in the phrase you used ' Westminster terms', that 48 seats is about 8% misrepresenting you?

[ProfessorDavey]

If the state you are talking about is Scotland, then the elections you should be talking about are those of the Scottish Parliament. It's difficult to argue Scotland is a one party state when the ruling party doesn't even command a majority of the seats.

But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.

But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. Particularly so when a party restricts itself to standing only in one geographic area because of their political ideologies. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.

But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.

The electoral system that applies in 'Westminster terms'

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way is saying that in the phrase you used ' Westminster terms', that 48 seats is about 8% misrepresenting you?

I have clarified what I meant - so you are clearly misrepresenting me if you fail to recognise that clarification. And just to be absolutely clear that no-one can be in any doubt as to what I meant originally, I will now edit that original post to make it crystal clear.

[Nearly Sane]

I have clarified what I meant - so you are clearly misrepresenting me if you fail to recognise that clarification. And just to be absolutely clear that no-one can be in any doubt as to what I meant originally, I will now edit that original post to make it crystal clear.

So tell me what you mean by one party state? What does 'state' mean in your usage?

[ProfessorDavey]

What does 'state' mean in your usage?

Go look at my original post which I have edited to ensure absolute clarify on what I meant by 'state' and 'in Westminster terms'.

So there can be no accidental or deliberate confusion as to what I meant and I mean, and therefore any further suggestion that I meant or mean something different would be a clear misrepresentation of my views.

[Nearly Sane]

Go look at my original post which I have edited to ensure absolute clarify on what I meant by 'state' and 'in Westminster terms'.

So there can be no accidental or deliberate confusion as to what I meant and I mean, and therefore any further suggestion that I meant or mean something different would be a clear misrepresentation of my views.

So a state in your terms is a geographic area - so all constituencies are 'one party states' in your terms?

[jeremyp]

But that is down to the electoral system - in terms of constituency seats, which is the equivalent of the Westminster system, the SNP won 85% of the constituency contests.

Wrong. In the Scottish Parliament which is the parliament of the government of Scotland, the SNP won 62 constituency seats which is roughly 48%.

But in terms of whether one party dominates a defined geographical area (or a 'state') then it is perfectly relevant to ask the question about how many seats a particular party wins in that geographic area even in a contest that covers a wider area. So looking at the SNPs results in Scottish Westminster seats seems entirely relevant. Indeed didn't Sturgeon herself claim that SNP victory in Scottish Westminster seats provided a mandate for a referendum and the Scottish vote for remain to provide a mandate in Scotland against brexit.

It's fair to argue that the SNP dominates the Scottish seats in the UK parliament but there are two problems with the way you are trying t interpret that. The first is that the phrase "one party state" does not mean "one party dominates a small part of the state". It means the party in government is the only party, or, more broadly, if there are other parties, none of them have any prospect of gaining power.

The second problem is that you are ignoring the electoral system in place in the UK. You can win all the seats with only 50.1% of the votes if they are evenly distributed over all the constituencies. However, in that case, you could go from all the seats to none of the seats at a general election with only a 0.100001% swing. The SNP having nearly all the seats in Westminster is not a reflection of its dominant support so much as how its support is distributed.

[jeremyp]

So a state in your terms is a geographic area - so all constituencies are 'one party states' in your terms?

Yes, in a sense, they are - between elections.

The UK is also a one party state between elections as long as one party has an absolute majority of seats, as the Tories do now.

However, I think most people would argue that this stretches the definition of "one party state" to the point of being meaningless. I think the impossibility of the ruling party being displaced at elections is essential to the true meaning of the phrase.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wrong. In the Scottish Parliament which is the parliament of the government of Scotland, the SNP won 62 constituency seats which is roughly 48%.

Sorry Jeremy - you are wrong they won 85% of the constituency seats, not 48%. The Scottish Parliament election is divided into two elements. The constituency seats - effectively FPTP like Westminster and secondly the regional list which provides additional member seats aimed at making the result more proportional.

There are 72 constituency seats, in 2021 the SNP won 85% of them. The reason why I was focussing on those seats is that they provide greater comparison with the Scottish Westminster seats which are also elected in a similar FPTP manner.

And actually the basic constitutions of both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly is such that it is almost impossible for a single party to gain an absolute majority - what they win on FPTP they lose via the additional member seats. That the SNP have come within one or two seats of an overall majority on a couple of occasions and actually won an overall majority in 2011 is testament to their dominance, even in a system that is designed to avoid an overall majority. For comparison Labour (traditionally considered to dominate in Wales) have never won an overall majority in the Welsh Assembly.

[Udayana]

Way too long and definitely self indulgent.

She certainly went on - I switched to something else after about 5 mins (in fear of losing the will to live) , so still have no idea why she resigned.

But I guess when you are the leader of something close to a one party state (by 'state' I mean Scotland*) and certainly in Westminster terms (by which I mean the 59 Scottish Westminster seats*) then it becomes likely that you'll end up believing the hyperbole.

*Edited to provide absolute clarity as to what I mean to avoid accidental or deliberate misrepresentation.

But the leader of the SNP in Westminster is Stephen Flynn, so not sure what hyperbole she has been imbibing.

(From the near one party state of Hampshire!)

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, in a sense, they are - between elections.

The UK is also a one party state between elections as long as one party has an absolute majority of seats, as the Tories do now.

However, I think most people would argue that this stretches the definition of "one party state" to the point of being meaningless. I think the impossibility of the ruling party being displaced at elections is essential to the true meaning of the phrase.

I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.

We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Jeremy - you are wrong they won 85% of the constituency seats, not 48%.

Apologies, you are right about that. I misread the table in Wikipedia. They won 62 out of 73 seats with 48% of the vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

(From the near one party state of Hampshire!)

True - but the Tories also put up candidates all over the place. Their candidates might win 95% of the seats in Hampshire, but their candidates lose all of their seats in St Albans to the LibDems - also a one party state.

The point is that the SNP only put up candidates in Scotland (for obvious reasons) and their success rate where they stand (and they don't cherry pick within Scotland, I think they stand everywhere) is unlike anything else I can think of.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.

We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.

So the Tory govts with majorities from 1979 - 1997 just passed you by. No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that the SNP, and de facto its leaders Salmond and Sturgeon have dominated Scottish politics over the last 12 years or so, in a manner that I've not seen anywhere else in the UK, certainly in my lifetime.

We are dealing with a party where between 60% and 95% of their candidates won in constituency votes in various elections for both Westminster and Holyrood across perhaps 6 separate elections. I cannot recall anything like this anywhere else in recent decades.

Odd that you completely ignored jeremyp's point about the meaning of 'one party state'. Why was that?

[ProfessorDavey]

So the Tory govts with majorities from 1979 - 1997 just passed you by.

Nope - not passed me by at all.

The tories won 53%, 61%, 58% and 52% of UK Westminster constituency seats in 1979 to 1992 respectively.

Comparing apples and apples - i.e. constituency seats contested by SNP in Westminster and Scottish Parliamentary seats SNP won (Westminster) 95%, 60%, 81% and (Scottish Parliament) 72%, 81% and 85%.

So the Tories best result through the Thatcher/Major years in terms of proportion of seats won is only a fraction better than the SNPs worst result since 2011. You could also throw in the 'dominance' of the Labour years 1997 to 2010, but here again the proportion of seats won was 64%, 63% and 55%, so again not comparable to the dominance of the SNP in the constituencies they've contested over the past 12 years.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - not passed me by at all.

The tories won 53%, 61%, 58% and 52% of UK Westminster constituency seats in 1979 to 1992 respectively.

Comparing apples and apples - i.e. constituency seats contested by SNP in Westminster and Scottish Parliamentary seats SNP won (Westminster) 95%, 60%, 81% and (Scottish Parliament) 72%, 81% and 85%.

So the Tories best result through the Thatcher/Major years in terms of proportion of seats won is only a fraction better than the SNPs worst result since 2011.

And you missed out 'No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.'

[ProfessorDavey]

And you missed out 'No SNP election in 'Westminster terms' or Indeed Holyrood terms gave that power.'

So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak). Whether the constitution gives that party a load of power or no power at all isn't the point - they still dominate politically within that area. And I cannot think of any other situation where a political party has had anything like the constituency seats won as a proportion of constituency seats contested as the SNP have over the past 12 years. And this is across all the seats they contest, not just cherry picking some.

[jeremyp]

So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak).

But your view is wrong. That's not the generally accepted definition of "one party state".

[ProfessorDavey]

But your view is wrong. That's not the generally accepted definition of "one party state".

It is a view - I don't think a subjective view can be determined either to be right or wrong.

My use of the term (note I also said "close to") was to demonstrate the utter dominance of the SNP over Scottish politics and their dominance over other parties over the past 12 years. Are you arguing that they haven't utterly dominated electorally and politically over the past 12 years.

As far as I can see since 2011 the SNP has won every election within Scotland, whether Scottish Westminster seats at general elections, Scottish Parliament, Local Council Elections and European parliament elections in terms of being the largest part by votes cast. That is quite remarkable as parties that dominate in the most significant elections often get clobbered at local level and/or european elections.

[Nearly Sane]

So what - in my view a one party state would be one where a particular party dominates massively over other parties within a particular geographic area (a state so to speak). Whether the constitution gives that party a load of power or no power at all isn't the point - they still dominate politically within that area. And I cannot think of any other situation where a political party has had anything like the constituency seats won as a proportion of constituency seats contested as the SNP have over the past 12 years. And this is across all the seats they contest, not just cherry picking some.

So in your view the red wall was a state.