Yellow everywhere
This is my favourite result of the daySNP have taken Edinburgh Central which was Ruth Davidsons seat.
Agree. Those Labour voters that didn't switch are the ones Nicola needs to win over in indyref2. That an independent Scotland is better than a lifetime of tory rule.Jackie Baillie kept her seat and Jackson Carlow aswell. Theres been a lot of tactical voting from the unionist community and its worked, however from my little analysis there has been far more Tory votes going to Labour than the other way around.
Absolutely but there are many SNP voters who are not pro Indy but have voted SNP yesterday to heard off the Conservatives.Agree. Those Labour voters that didn't switch are the ones Nicola needs to win over in indyref2. That an independent Scotland is better than a lifetime of tory rule.
Tory votes were down 6% and Labour up 6% so looks like they’ve voted tactically.The snp had to take Jackie Baillie's seat, she increased her wafer thin majority very well, doubt there will be an snp majority in the Scottish Parliament now.
Yes they would. The money from the union is put into the union from Scotland. We’d also have the benefit of all our exports that are counted at port of departure rather than origin. When you look beyond the Unionist media there is articles/research etc that say public spending could actually continue to grow rather than need to be cut.I can see there being another indyref or at least very very heavy pressure to have one since Westminster has to give yay or nay to it. Would an independent Scotland still be able to afford free Uni, prescriptions, etc without money from the Union, how else would the afford it?
Can you link to the report / study that shows this?Did you know it would cost more to administer a means tested prescription service in Scotland than to just make it a free service for all.
They definitely could; as they control where money is spent and could keep the big pr wins and cut other areas.Would an independent Scotland still be able to afford free Uni, prescriptions, etc without money from the Union, how else would the afford it?
Yep, agreed. It’s strange that such a focus is being placed on the majority: Holyrood being designed to specifically prevent a majority. 2011 was such a bolt out the blue. SNP after 14 years in office have pulled off a very impressive achievement with this election. You don’t need to like/support them to recognise that they have a mandate in Scotland. That map is YELLOW.I think its a stonker of a result. First woman of colour into Holyrood. My list vote went towards the Greens taking a seat. They have a good independence majority now with the Greens on track for 9!! seats.
So yes imo there is a mandate for another rederendum.
The Greens had 3 seats I thought but could be wrong, so have gone from 3 to 9. Edit - was 6 to 9. Still a great result. 1/3 more.Yep, agreed. It’s strange that such a focus is being placed on the majority: Holyrood being designed to specifically prevent a majority. 2011 was such a bolt out the blue. SNP after 14 years in office have pulled off a very impressive achievement with this election. You don’t need to like/support them to recognise that they have a mandate in Scotland. That map is YELLOW.
They increased their vote to surpass any parties vote in Scottish Parliament elections ever.
They flipped Ayr, East Lothian and Edinburgh Central. The only party to flip constituencies in this election.
Greens are hopefully going to do very well on the regional list and those 9 MSPs is an increase from the current 5 they have (I believe?)
My jaw drops at those people claiming SNP was AT LEAST 47% of the vote have no mandate yet they celebrate the Conservatives English victory... with 40%
But surely it's apples and pears; a mandate to govern for the next X years yes but a mandate to make a fundamental change to irreversibly change a country is a whole different kettle of fish. I think the Brexit vote should have needed at least 50% of the UK to vote for it for it to take place - quickly did some poor maths and looks like 38% voted for it. Fundamental changes to a country a a world apart from appointing representatives for a few years.My jaw drops at those people claiming SNP was AT LEAST 47% of the vote have no mandate yet they celebrate the Conservatives English victory... with 40%
Same argument could be made that Conservatives 2015 Westminster victory did not mean they had a mandate to hold an EU referendum? They campaigned on that promise and people voted for it. Same as SNP.But surely it's apples and pears; a mandate to govern for the next X years yes but a mandate to make a fundamental change to irreversibly change a country is a whole different kettle of fish. I think the Brexit vote should have needed at least 50% of the UK to vote for it for it to take place - quickly did some poor maths and looks like 38% voted for it. Fundamental changes to a country a a world apart from appointing representatives for a few years.
I just wish either way it was clear, all these 50 odd percent for one thing and 40 odd percent for another leads to more division and less cohesion . The wounds from the last ref vote are still not healed, let alone Brexit.