dws wrote:
Agentmancuso, I'd go with morals any day if you are happy with democracy as you see it.

Happy with the present system? No, it could be improved, and made more democratic by for example, the introduction of a Single Transferable Vote for all elections. (not to mention fixed term parliaments, the transfer of substantial tax raising (and spending) powers to regional assemblies/ local authorities, reform of the upper chamber, abolition of the monarchy and disestablishment of the churches...)

But it cannot be made more democratic by the use of idiot-friendly methods like referendums.

A bit of a simplistic analogy to a pub crawl,

No more simplistic than the reduction of complex issues to a stunted Yes/No option.

are you saying that we get our shot at democracy only at election time and then we leave our Honourable and Right Honourable friends to govern without accountability?

No. We leave them to govern, precisely because they are accountable, and will be judged on their record next polling day. At which point their trustworthiness re their own previous electoral promises can be judged on its own merits.

Those in Westminster are no better than you or I. They certainly do not have the monopoly on common sense, morals, selflessness or towering intellect. TLJ, they are not on average any brighter than the man on the street, and in some cases less informed and more detached from reality (some no doubt read the Sun!).

That's evidently true, but I'm not sure why it's relevant.

One's position on the EU is besides the point here - if I didn't know better I'd think I'm speaking to two avid supporters of Brussels (for myself, I am undecided).

I'm certainly pro-European, in the broader sense, but the present structure is hideously bureaucratic and unwieldy.

VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT, BUT THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING THEY SAY THEY WILL

They are under a moral obligation, judgment on which will be visited apon them next polling day, but they are under no legal or democratic obligation.

I take it from your positions that you are against a referendum on independence?

Yes.

agentmancuso wrote:-
Happy with the present system? No, it could be improved, and made more democratic

If I'm reading your definition of democracy correctly, no thank you.

But it cannot be made more democratic by the use of idiot-friendly methods like referendums.


That's a bit condescending, you could equally say "easily understandable". You may consider the electorate to have idiots amongst them, but you would be happy for said idiots to vote in an election and not a referendum. A bit of a paradox there.

We leave them to govern, precisely because they are accountable, and will be judged on their record next polling day. At which point their trustworthiness re their own previous electoral promises can be judged on its own merits.


And how, precisely are they accountable if they have no need in your eyes to act the way they say they will? In an age where all parties seem to be converging on the middle ground and it's increasingly more difficult to tell them apart, you may as well abandon the concept of elections as well and just have "Buggin's turn".
Party "A" in government, and unpopular. "A" get voted out in favour of "B", who turn out to be as bad, if not worse than "A" (Oh, wait a minute - that's already happened) and we all happily shuffle along and vote accordingly for "A", because being the idiots we are we have the memory span of a gnat and don't remember how bad "A" were in the first place.

As to the independence issue, would you be content if the SNP attained a majority at Holyrood and then declared independence?

Your whole argument seems to suggest that people should be content for every decision, no matter how vital or irreversible, to be decided without the electorate expressing their opinion. Why are you so against the plebs having a say? They have to live with the decision, after all.