British nationalists are saying that if the SNP loses a few seats whilst retaining a majority it will have ‘lost’ the election and will have no mandate. It necessary follows from this ‘reasoning’ that should the Tories lose a similar number or proportion of seats whilst still retaining a majority, it too will have ‘lost’ the election.
Would one of those British nationalist oblige us by explaining the constitutional implications of this stricture. Apparently, it means that a government can only be formed by a party which has not only won most of the seats, but more seats than it did previously. Or more seats than the previous winner.
If both the winners – in terms of traditional arithmetic – and the losers are held to have no mandate, who forms a government? Does the Queen draw a name out of a hat? Does she exercise some obscure power derived from an ancient manuscript or perhaps a cave painting in Cheshire?
Taken to its logical conclusion, does this not inevitably lead to a one-party state? Or does the mythical British constitution have a way of dealing with the situation?
Helps us out here! If, as the Queen of the British Nationalists has suggested, 100% of a 100% turnout doesn’t count as an endorsement, what does?
If you find these articles interesting, please consider a small donation.
All monies received are used in furtherance of the campaign
to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.