Extremely dumb-arse questions about UK politics

[SpawnChorus]

I'm too embarrassed to reveal my ignorance in RL, and google research doesn't explain it in sufficiently thickoid language.

1. How does this election affect the Scottish Parliament? Or does Scot Parliament have its own election? Are MSPs the same individuals as the MPs in Westminister?

2. Why is it so hard for Lib Dewms to convert votes to seats? I know it's summat to do with first past the post system...is it because in any one constituency they are likely to come 2nd (or better), whereas Con and Lab are likely to come first or third?

1. I thought it was the same but never really thought about it so could be wrong!

1. You need to get the most votes in a contituancy to get the seat and in a lot of cases the Lib Dems don't. Thats why they want PR. PR means that if they get 50% of the countries votes they get 50% of the seats.

1. The UK (Westminster) Parliament sets policy for the UK.

UK policy is things like defence, tax rates, foreign affairs, national borrowing, etc.

The Scottish Parliament is given a fixed amount by the UK Parliament each year. It decides how to spend this between devolved issues like education, health, policing, etc.

Confusingly, the UK Parliament also decides health/education/policing for England - most people reckon it is too expensive to have a completely separate Parliament for England only, so they fudge it.

2. Yes, you are exactly right. This is also a problem for the Tories, though less so than for the Liberal Democrats. Labour are very effective at winning votes in the seats where it counts.

MSPs are totally different, election is at a different time, there is no effect at all on Holyrood from the westminster election.

EXCEPT.. there are almost no conservatives in the scottish parliament, in theory it might be harder for a conservative government to work with a scottish parliament which is mainly SNP, Labour and Lib Dem (ie. quite left wing).

Many people think that if the conservatives get into westminster then that will encourage more scots to vote for full independence.

THe election affects the scottish parliament in so far as it affects the amount of money it is given by Westminster, MSPs are different from MPs. MPs sit in Westminster but MSPs sit in Holyrood. You can't be an MSP and an MP at the same time. Elections for Scottish parliament are held at a different time, between general elections.

Many of the main debating points between the 3 main parties are irrelevant to Scotland because they are devolved issues (things like education, policing, health etc.) What a Westminster government has to say on these things makes no difference to Scotland. What will affect us is the economic policies of the 3 main, Westminster parties because the Westminster government gives the executive money to fund their devolved stuff. So large public sector cuts could affect Scotland very badly as could a government which fails to realise that Scotland is coming out of recession much more slowly than the rest of the UK or one that doesn't realise that, although Scotland has a small percentage of the UKs population, we have just about 1/3 of the landmass, which means that the cost of delivering our services is proportionately higher per capita. Funding from Westminster is done on a per capita basis and a large cut in the settlement could have a much bigger impact than imagined. All the talk of replacing the Barnett formula with a "need based" idea is pretty frightening as well, because Scotland could end up with a disastrously low level of funding.

Lib dems have a hard time making votes = seats because they keep coming second or third in places, so even with a high percentage of the vote the first past the post system makes it difficult to make gains. In most places the candidate who is returned will have significantly less than half the votes but because they have the most, they win. This is why electoral reform is so crucial to democracy in this country.

1. No the Scottish Parliament is completely separate, and we have different elections at a completely different time. The MSPs are only in the Scottish Parliament, and MPs are only at Westminster.

1. You're right it's to do with being second a lot - so you'll have seats with a Labour MP who got the majority, with a LibDem second, and seats with a Conservative MP and a LibDem in second place. If you counted up all the votes, the LibDems might have got more overall than either Labout or Conservative, but still not got a seat.

I would like to hope that a Tory government would make more folk vote for independence, fluffles. I have to say, though, that none of the other parties really work with the SNP at all within the Scottish Parliament, because they have a problem working with a party of independence.

To be honest, I find the whole thing really unfair. Why should Scotland have to be governed by a Westminster government (presuming a Tory victory) when said government might have no representatives in Scotland at all?

"I would like to hope that a Tory government would make more folk vote for independence"

I also hope they do for a different reason why should Scotland have a say and a vote in the westminister government with issues that are nothing to do with them, just so they can prop up Labour.

And if we cut off scotland labour lose all those votes in westminister and goodbye Gordon Brown and his ilk.

Good reason to move north isn't it.

(Thanks for the Scottish parliament info btw I didn't know much about it)

Personally, I'd like England to have a Parliament/Assembly which votes on purely English matters, rather than Scotland becoming fully independent. Or maybe the Westminster Parliament could have days/sessions when they dealt with UK policy and ones where they dealt with English policy. It's certainly a very strange situation where Scottish MPs can vote on policy which doesn't affect Scotland.

SNP MPs don't vote on westminster issues that are devolved, iyswim, only on issues that affect the UK as a whole. I agree that Scottish MPs should not be voting on devolved issues. It's one of the drawbacks and inconsistencies of devolution as opposed to full independence.

I still think that it deeply unfair to have a whole country governed by a party who have no real support. I also firmly believe that no Westminster government, regardless of colour, really gies a button for Scotland or the welfare or opinions of the Scots. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that none of the other mainstream parties will work with a democratically elected SNP government in Holyrood, at the behest of their London based string pullers.

To be honest, Labour is losing a lot of their established voter base here, just like everywhere else. I think that some Labour MPs will be in for a big shock on May 7th. Sadly, though, more and more people are just saying that they won't vote because they can't bring themselves to vote for any of the three main parties.

They really need to spoil their paper with a "None of the Above" message, so the major parties can get to see the level of distrust, as not voting only does that in a mostly hidden way.

Amuminscotland yes - i have always wondered why they don't just do all the english business at westminster on a thursday and let the scottish MPs begin the long journeys back to their constituencies a day early.

so what about the welsh assembly - does this operate the same way as the scottish?
If scotland did vote for independence - will that mean that they won't be part of the uk so will be a completely separate country (like france for example) and if yes - if they have to rely on money from westminster (did I understand that correctly?) then how will be financially independent?
Are the welsh and northern irish also keen on independence?
Final question (honest) - is there a party which is promoting the set up of an english parliament? and why is an english parliament a bad thing?
Sorry I'm very politically ignorant!

scrappydappydoo - re Welsh Assembly...

Fewer areas of control (you constantly hear about laws for England and Wales), depends much more for funding from Westminster (and gets less).

As for being keen on independence, it depends on whether you talk to Welsh language activists/ speakers or not, in part.

As for Scotland, I think they'd want to be like the Channel Islands or Isle of Man and have UK forces for defence, but use Oil and Gas (plus green energy schemes) to help pay for themselves, possibly get EU funds as a smaller nation with special interests (crofting, Gaelic language, history)

Thing I most dislike about the "separation" issues is that in different places there are completely different schemes, whether for care home funding, travel schemes, even assessment of schools.

For example, OFSTED reports on schools in England and were happy to provide me with a list. Welsh statistical office happy for me to have a list, but banned from using it on the web. Scottish office responded with 'you can get a list of schools from XXXX' {XXXX is a Surrey based mailing list firm, charging hundreds of pounds). Gave up before asking the NI office in case they asked if I was Catholic or Protestant!

What I'm getting at is that within this "United Kingdom" one cannot easily compare education, health care, even council tax (NI still has rates system, I think, and other differences.. is 17 still age of consent in NI ?)

The Lib Dems tend to come second a lot. So they have a lot of votes piled into candidates who don't get seats.

In case anyone concerned about interest in schools, one of my plans is for funds for PTA and similar projects to be given out by one of my websites - handled as a charity under independent control - with income from another UK-wide site accepting paid business adverts to challenge Yellow pages/ Thomson/ Google.

The one with UK-wide ads would have information, such as local schools, local government contact info, family- friendly entertainment and attractions... ie no gambling or similar, no drinking / lapdancing etc clubs, or other 'adult' nightspots.

Since it would aid PTAs and would have local businesses on, it would hopefully get plenty of links and support... one way to 'give back' to education even though I have no children.

An interesting point about Scottish MPs not voting on English matters, where does Gordon Brown, MP for Kirkcaldy, Scotland, fit? He certainly gets involved in matters that do not effect his constiuents, such as English education and health. He would also be out of a job if Scotland went independnt, so definately not keen!

Ah thank you - its difficult cos I get so of no prescription charges, no tuition fees, no sats etc etc and I think what are we (england) getting??

1. How does this election affect the Scottish Parliament? Or does Scot Parliament have its own election? Are MSPs the same individuals as the MPs in Westminister?

IT DOESNT AFFECT THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, UNLESS SAY, THE WINNER OF THIS ELECTION IS THE SAME WINNER AS IN THE SCOTTISH ELECTIONS, THEREFORE THEY WOULD PURSUE SIMILAR POLICIES. HOWEVER, IF SAY LABOUR WON THE UK ELECTION, THE SNP ARE STILL IN POWER IN SCOTLAND AND THEY EACH HAVE DIFFERENT POLICIES. THIS UK ELECTION WONT REALLY AFFECT DEVOLVED MATTERS OTHERWISE. THE SCOTS PARLIAMENT HAS ITS OWN ELECTION WITH THE NEXT ONE IN 2013 (I THINK...), MSPS AND MPS ARE DIFFERENT. I HAVE AN MP AND AN MSP IN MY CONSTITUENCY, BOTH FROM THE SAME PARTY, BUT CAN BE DIFFERENT PARTIES.

2. Why is it so hard for Lib Dewms to convert votes to seats? I know it's summat to do with first past the post system...is it because in any one constituency they are likely to come 2nd (or better), whereas Con and Lab are likely to come first or third?

I SAW A GOOD EXPLANATION ON THE BBC WEBSITE OF HOW IT WORKS. BASICALLY SAY THERE ARE 3 SEATS AVAILABLE. LABOUR GET THE MOST VOTES IN 2 SEATS, TORIES IN 1 SEAT BUT OVERALL WHEN VOTES ARE COUNTED UP ACROSS ALL SEATS ITS THE LIB DEMS WITH THE MOST VOTES BUT THEY DIDN'T WIN THE SEATS BECAUSE THEIR VOTES GO ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT IN EACH SEAT. SEE BBC WEBSITE IF THIS DOESNT MAKE SENSE

(SCUSE THE CAPS)

I can't find the bit on the BBC website about how it works, scottishmummy, have you got a direct link to it?

Also I was quite annoyed to see (as a first time voter) in the "First Time Voter" section a video of "Election explained by a glamour model" because young people will only listen to someone who is some kind of vague celebrity, of course.

Aha! Thank you so much for your explanations, and especially stressedHEMum

So, I suppose the next question is, what are the three main Westminster party's policies re: the Barnett formula, and other economic factors that would affect Scotland?

I'm guessing that Tory = Baaaad.

NI are most definietly not trying for independance. The trouble over there is because the south want the north back, the north dont want to give it back. Simples.
Except I think lots of people dont really care too much anymore and they just want a job and not to get blown up!

I wonder how Scotland and Wales would survive full independance? Where would they get their money from? Not enough oil & gas left for a long term plan surely?

We have a Labour government which only secured around 35% of the countries vote last time. Hardley democratic.
However I dont want to see the situation of a constant coalition government which is what we would have should we introduce PR.

t's quite late and I have the remains of a hideous migraine, but will do my best with what I know.

As I understand it, both Tories and Lib-dems want to scrap the barnett formula and replace it with some kind of "need-based" per capita UK wide funding. The difference between them is that the Lib-dems seem to want to transfer tax raising powers from Westminster to the Scottish parliament, so that they aren't s dependent on London funding.

THE SNP want to keep the Barnett formula as things stand, but aiming for independence would look to have tax raising powers and more economic powers.

Not sure about LAbour. They want, I think, to maintain the status quo.

Getting rid of the Barnett formula without allowing Scotland more fiscal independence to raise her own revenues would be very bad for the country because of things like our demographics, widespread areas of deprivation. and the difficulties of providing public services here.

THe whole not enough oil thing is a bit thin to be honest. There are huge reserves under the north west coast that have never been tapped that are separate from the North sea (obviously). SNP are keen on expanding our potential for green energy and other things like that as well. Part of the problem with long term stability is that, as a result of successive failures in Westminster, Scotland has very little industry left and has a mainly service based economy. I think that that is one of the things that would need to be addressed.

As for the coalition government thing, well it's hardly been a disaster here. There are things which haven't been achieved yet, mainly because the three other main parties "team up" to thwart the SNP on principle, but progress is definitely being made.

apologies for the lack of proper info and the
rubbish explanations. Perhaps I shal try again tomorrow when I feel a bit better.

Quite entertained by people finding it hard to understand how Scotland could be independent. Scotland has industries and resources, Scottish people pay taxes too! It is a bit like saying, "How can Denmark be independent, it so small and near to other countries".