It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.
The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.
> It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.
That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.
One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for.
When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states.
So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws.
NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.
> That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.
I'm going to bite the bullet and agree with you here. But the situation is worse than that: even if your chosen party won at this flavour of democracy, you should still consider taking the ball home.
400,000 Scottish people voted for the Conservative party - and yet these voters are unbelievably underrepresented or unrepresented within the Conservative government with only 1 MP and quite probably 0 again in the future (I concede that Scottish voters were overrepresented in the recent Labour era of government, although this was only slight)
The present UK government has no commitment to Scotland and limited reason to represent Scotland's interests, and that's likely to continue to be the case in future governments. It's not healthy or sustainable for Scotland.
Why wouldn't you choose self-rule over being locked out of government?
I think part of the problem lies in the question "Where does it end?" Not just UK/England, even within Scotland there are multiple different factions. Once you've set the principle that it's ok to divide a country because you don't think you're being represented by the current party, where does it stop? In 10 years time we might be hearing calls for Islay or the Highlands to separate from the rest of Scotland for example. Or Cornwall from England...
So to my mind, wouldn't it be better to work at improving Scotland from within the UK rather than just abandoning both it and the democratic principle?
For example, instead of voting SNP, Labour or Conservative - vote Scottish Coalition. If the Scot MPs had been a united block, independent of the major UK parties, they could have easily taken the junior party position in the current coalition. They would also have had enough seats to do the same to the previous Labour government. Then you'd see some real change, without the all the potential downsides that independence could bring.
It's a third solution that nobody even seems to be mentioning or even trying. It seems to me anyway, that people have just given up as soon as the Conservatives got in. Will there still be this same sentiment after the next election when Labour probably get back in power? Or is it just a protest vote against the Conservatives? In which case, isn't independence a seriously drastic measure that's nigh on irreversible and has a large number of potential downsides?
PS: My personal favourite idea for the future of the union is actually devo-max (not independence) for every region big and small, with the Lords being replaced by a regionally elected House with longer terms. But if you want to work within the current system, a Scot Coalition is the way I'd go.
Yes. In the 13 general elections dating back to 1964, the Conservative party have been 2nd, 3rd or 4th in Scotland's vote share for the Westminster parliament. In the three elections since 2001, the Conservatives have finished 4th (in a 2-party system).
Yet 6 of those 13 general elections, including the most recent, have resulted in a Conservative Prime Minister.
Given that the frequency with which the key critical words are applied to men (essentially never) and women (essentially always), your explanation cannot tell the whole story.
Saying that this is inconclusive is a strange thing to claim - the evidence is plentiful. You are describing a serious but separate problem which adds to but does not explain this difference.
Answer: Not at all. Science rarely has such unanimity on any topic as that illustrated by this article.
There is only one study cited here showing negative correlation between any two aspects of intelligence, despite this being worthy of study for the whole of a century. That shouldn't even register as random noise.
A strong negative correlation does not support the claim that intelligence is modular (which I interpret as "made up of somewhat independent modules"), it would in fact support the claim that a common factor is responsible for high performance in one area and low performance in another.
We do know that the brain itself is quite modular, with various areas of the brain having specific functions. I had a rather disturbing experience that vividly illustrated just how specialised the function of different brain region is. It statrted with a short episode of hemianopia, which was a really bizzare experience in itself - I lost the ability to see the right half of my normal vision. In both eyes. Then, after normal vision returned, I noticed that when looking at text I could make out individual letters, I could see the words as a collection of letters, but I could not put the letters together and understand any of the words.
I had a pile of tests afterwards, including a brain CAT scan, that fortunately found nothing terribly wrong, and the episode was diagnosed as a vascular spasm. But apparently the brief interruption of blood flow to some particular region of the brain had interfered with the "module" that made words out of letters, while leaving other brain functions unaffected.
I have since then formed a belief that our minds are assembled from numerous modules, rather than being a monolithic whole.
The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.