Why Maths And Magic Number Of 65 Will Decide Power (from The Herald Election Site)

There's been much talk of moral authority. But in the horse-trading now at play in deciding the future of Scottish government, morality is the least of their concerns. After the eye-wateringly tight results on Friday, democracy is about something much simpler - arithmetic.

The key to Holyrood power is the number 65. Government authority comes from the party leader who can command at least that majority of votes in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament.

That figure assumes the opposition's ability to unify against those in government, and that could make opposition-building as important as coalition-building. Alex Salmond merely needs to get more in favour of his nomination as First Minister than against, with abstentions potentially crucial to deciding the future of Scotland.

If LibDems or Tories sit on their hands, he could be in. But he also wants a majority to secure a vote for his ministerial team and for his budget and legislative programme over the next four years. That includes an independence referendum, to which a clear majority of MSPs are firmly opposed.

While Tories have ruled themselves out of coalition, LibDems spent the weekend licking electoral wounds. Some think the answer is to retrench in opposition, and build a clearer identity.

But going backwards, being out of power and being fourth largest group is no way to achieve anything. That is why LibDems want to stay in power, but not with Labour, even if talks with the SNP collapse.

Their best hope of growth now is to benefit from continued Labour decline, rather than seeking to prop up their partners of the past eight years.

Despite LibDem setbacks, they last night stood firm against an independence referendum. Arithmetic has strengthened their hand. On that crucial issue, Alex Salmond can count on his own group, and probably two Greens.

While his group grew, it did so at the expense of 11 Socialists and Greens who supported independence. So while the SNP leader has 20 more MSPs, independence has only nine more supporters than before.

Counting on only 50 pro-independence votes out of 129, when the others are implacably opposed, means a referendum cannot happen.

If the SNP leader went for a minority administration, he could be sure of the challenge of learning the ropes of government, the hassle of cobbling together majorities for each week's votes, while facing flak from Whitehall, and he would still not get a vote on independence.

The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make.

Jack McConnell faced a similar problem over reform of council voting four years ago, when the LibDems knew a Holyrood majority could vote it through whether the Labour leader was in or out of coalition.

If Mr Salmond accepts that arithmetical reality and can explain it to his own party, the SNP and LibDems can argue over spending priorities, onshore wind farms (LibDems want lots more, the SNP want them limited) and, of course, ministerial posts.

If Mr Salmond fears Labour's ability to unite the opposition against him, he would still need the two Greens to reach 65. Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper hope they can return to previous strength through having a role in government.

They prefer to offer conditional stability, meaning they would back the First Minister and his budget, but force him to persuade them for other votes.

What price would they demand? The M74 extension through Glasgow could be in trouble, as could the Aberdeen ring road. Greens are sceptical about the need for another Forth crossing, and they want to stop airport expansion.

[quote]What price would they demand? The M74 extension through Glasgow could be in trouble, as could the Aberdeen ring road. Greens are sceptical about the need for another Forth crossing, and they want to stop airport expansion.[/quote] What a good start to SNP government that would be

What price would they demand? The M74 extension through Glasgow could be in trouble, as could the Aberdeen ring road. Greens are sceptical about the need for another Forth crossing, and they want to stop airport expansion.

What a good start to SNP government that would be

"The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make." Not for politicians experienced in the daily grind of negotiation and compromise which is an essential part of coalition politics. But for a party leader used to getting his own way with his own party and with a monstrous ego it might be well-nigh impossible. What is demonstrably obvious to everyone else isn't to Eck. He thinks it's not only his ba', he gets to pick both teams and be the referee.

"The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make."

Not for politicians experienced in the daily grind of negotiation and compromise which is an essential part of coalition politics. But for a party leader used to getting his own way with his own party and with a monstrous ego it might be well-nigh impossible.

What is demonstrably obvious to everyone else isn't to Eck. He thinks it's not only his ba', he gets to pick both teams and be the referee.

[quote][bold]Jock Tamson's Bairn[/bold] wrote: "The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make." Not for politicians experienced in the daily grind of negotiation and compromise which is an essential part of coalition politics. But for a party leader used to getting his own way with his own party and with a monstrous ego it might be well-nigh impossible. What is demonstrably obvious to everyone else isn't to Eck. He thinks it's not only his ba', he gets to pick both teams and be the referee.[/quote] Just the latest in a long line of your ridiculous, unhelpful rants at a time when cool heads are required. B****r Off and let's get through the current problem with our democracy intact............yer petty points scoring rant helps no-one and should EMBARRASS you !!

Jock Tamson's Bairn wrote:
"The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make." Not for politicians experienced in the daily grind of negotiation and compromise which is an essential part of coalition politics. But for a party leader used to getting his own way with his own party and with a monstrous ego it might be well-nigh impossible. What is demonstrably obvious to everyone else isn't to Eck. He thinks it's not only his ba', he gets to pick both teams and be the referee.

Just the latest in a long line of your ridiculous, unhelpful rants at a time when cool heads are required.
B****r Off and let's get through the current problem with our democracy intact............yer petty points scoring rant helps no-one and should EMBARRASS you !!

[quote]"The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make."[/quote] Is it such an obvious choice for the SNP ? Being in government would expose their policies to greater public scrutiny, force them to take some unpopular decisions, and deny them the opportunity to take up populist causes against the government. Come the next election, they would have a record to be judged on - and their main cause of independence could well be set back a long way. But if they went into opposition and allowed Labour to rule, with or without the Lib Dems, they would be able to spend four years crying foul about a "Unionist conspiracy", and come back in four years time with a whole new set of local issues to campaign on. So perhaps Alex Salmond's refusal to compromise with the Lib Dems is, again, part of the SNP's game plan, and he would genuinely prefer to be out of power.

"The choice is between being in power with no referendum or being out of power with no referendum. It is not a difficult choice to make."

Is it such an obvious choice for the SNP ? Being in government would expose their policies to greater public scrutiny, force them to take some unpopular decisions, and deny them the opportunity to take up populist causes against the government. Come the next election, they would have a record to be judged on - and their main cause of independence could well be set back a long way.

But if they went into opposition and allowed Labour to rule, with or without the Lib Dems, they would be able to spend four years crying foul about a "Unionist conspiracy", and come back in four years time with a whole new set of local issues to campaign on.

So perhaps Alex Salmond's refusal to compromise with the Lib Dems is, again, part of the SNP's game plan, and he would genuinely prefer to be out of power.

[quote]So perhaps Alex Salmond's refusal to compromise with the Lib Dems is, again, part of the SNP's game plan[/quote] You could alternatively say that the LibDems refused to co-operate with the SNP! To quote Tavish Scott: [italic]"They have to ditch the referendum."[/italic] Which hardly sounds like conciliatory talk -- but then, a UK party simply cannot afford to strike a deal that would put Scotland and its people first.

So perhaps Alex Salmond's refusal to compromise with the Lib Dems is, again, part of the SNP's game plan

You could alternatively say that the LibDems refused to co-operate with the SNP! To quote Tavish Scott:

"They have to ditch the referendum."

Which hardly sounds like conciliatory talk -- but then, a UK party simply cannot afford to strike a deal that would put Scotland and its people first.

While we are talking about the magic number 65: Votes for "local income tax parties" = 47 + 16 = 63 Votes for "council tax parties" = 46+17 = 63 The two Greens, I believe, also support a property based tax (Land value tax)? And I have no idea what Margo Macdonald's position on this is. If the SNP can't get a majority for their core policy of an independence referendum, or for their electioneering policy of local income tax, then why would they want to be in power ? Is Bute House that good a place to stay?

While we are talking about the magic number 65:

Votes for "local income tax parties" = 47 + 16 = 63

Votes for "council tax parties" = 46+17 = 63

The two Greens, I believe, also support a property based tax (Land value tax)? And I have no idea what Margo Macdonald's position on this is.

If the SNP can't get a majority for their core policy of an independence referendum, or for their electioneering policy of local income tax, then why would they want to be in power ? Is Bute House that good a place to stay?

[quote][bold]lancashire man[/bold] wrote: FOR GODS SAKE YOU LOT SHUT UP BECAUSE YOUR PART OF ENGLAND AND THATS THAT .BLOODY JOCKS HHAHHAHHA[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] No we are not,we are an independent country. Not only that but if you look at your goverment you will see that we rule England as well.

lancashire man wrote:
FOR GODS SAKE YOU LOT SHUT UP BECAUSE YOUR PART OF ENGLAND AND THATS THAT .BLOODY JOCKS HHAHHAHHA

No we are not,we are an independent country. Not only that but if you look at your goverment you will see that we rule England as well.

Why should the Greens have more than minimal input when they only have minimal numbers. A major outcome of the election, which has not been noticed, apparently, is that the Green Party was resoundingly rejected by the voters of Scotland. They lost 5 of their 7 seats and lost 50,000 votes, down from 132,000 in 2003 to 82,000 now. Why on earth should these people be allowed to dictate about much-needed roads, and to impose yet more "green" taxes on the people who have rejected them?

Why should the Greens have more than minimal input when they only have minimal numbers.
A major outcome of the election, which has not been noticed, apparently, is that the Green Party was resoundingly rejected by the voters of Scotland.
They lost 5 of their 7 seats and lost 50,000 votes, down from 132,000 in 2003 to 82,000 now.
Why on earth should these people be allowed to dictate about much-needed roads, and to impose yet more "green" taxes on the people who have rejected them?

The M74 extension is desperately needed to help the West of Scotland economy. I seriously doubt this would be dropped, as the SNP seem committed to higher economic growth. And it's hardly some highland beauty spot here - the route is mostly derelict wasteland. Another 15 or 20 years and most cars will be electric anyway.

The M74 extension is desperately needed to help the West of Scotland economy.
I seriously doubt this would be dropped, as the SNP seem committed to higher economic growth.

And it's hardly some highland beauty spot here - the route is mostly derelict wasteland.
Another 15 or 20 years and most cars will be electric anyway.

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2009 A Gannett Company