Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jack Knave on February 12, 2015, 12:24:41 AM
-
Following current affairs I keep hearing the endless talk about the SNP getting a substantial number of seats in May, and being possible king makers. What keeps coming to mind is the talk and chatter that took place after the Scottish referendum that the SNP were now dead in the water. Why do people think that this is not what happened, and specially could our Scottish friends shed some light on what is going on with the growing support of the SNP even though the Scottish people voted to stay in the Union?
-
Following current affairs I keep hearing the endless talk about the SNP getting a substantial number of seats in May, and being possible king makers. What keeps coming to mind is the talk and chatter that took place after the Scottish referendum that the SNP were now dead in the water. Why do people think that this is not what happened, and specially could our Scottish friends shed some light on what is going on with the growing support of the SNP even though the Scottish people voted to stay in the Union?
Maybe they've just realised there is an alternative to the unctuous Cameron or Miliband.
-
There are a variety of reasons.
1. If you are outside Scotland it is perhaps easy to forget that the SNP are not just a fringe party - they are the government in Scotland for all the devolved powers, which are increasing following the referendum result, and I'd have to say they have done a reasonable job of it.
2. The SNP here in Scotland (and I haven't ever voted for them as yet) are clearly more competent than Scottish Labour of late, who are the only serious opposition to the SNP here, but they have imploded in recent years due to poor leadership and links with the main UK Labour party. I doubt that parachuting in Jim Murphy will be enough to save them.
3. The result of the referendum last year, and the frantic last minute interventions by Gordon Brown etc, might have achieved a No result but not by a decisive margin given that 45% of Scots wanted out of the UK. Independence is still an aim for many Scots, as the post-referendum rise in support for the SNP since then suggests, and it seems that those Labour supporters who voted Yes last September (as I did) will now switch their vote to the SNP in May (as I will).
4. The situation as regards Scottish MP's in Westminster is that should the SNP gain substantially from Labour here in Scotland the shift in numbers could be sufficient to deny Labour either an outright majority or enough seats to go into a coalition: the Tories are not a factor here, and the Lib-Dems are likely to be routed as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories, and depending on the number of SNP seats won then the SNP could have a greater influence in Westminster.
5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.
Whatever happens it should be interesting!
-
All three main pro indy parties showed a large increase in membership following the referendum, the largest increase being in SNP ranks, where, according to stats in December 100,000 people are now paid up members, making it the largest party in Scotland by a country mile, and one of the largest in the 'UK'.
At my local branch last month, 18 new members were listed...two of them ex-Labour councillors.
Not only did the positivity of the SNP versus the negativity of the once great Labour party contribute to the change, but the sight of Labour agreeing with Tory austerity plans after joining them in a coalition of the NO campaign has left an impression of a bankrupt movement, whether that impression is justified or not.
Couple that with the leaving shot of Johan Lamont, the former Scottish Labour leader, when she compared the Scottish Labour Party to a 'local branch office', and Labour in Scotland have a few mountains to climb if they want to recover their prestige.
As Gordon stated, up here the Tories don't figure in the equation (though if the system was PR they would), and disillusionment with the Lib Dems means they have a tough fight as well.
-
Maybe as there is now little chance of a fully independent Scotland in the near future, Scots are happier to vote SNP and gain more autonomy and benefits within the union?
-
45% of the electorate is a pretty sizeable proportion. The Tories and Labour both got enormous numbers of seats in 2010 with less than 45% of the vote.
-
Politics of hate always thrive
-
45% of the electorate is a pretty sizeable proportion. The Tories and Labour both got enormous numbers of seats in 2010 with less than 45% of the vote.
It wasn't 45% of the electorate thoguh
-
Politics of hate always thrive
Which parties promulgate such policies in Scotland, Dolores?
-
5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.
I think that is interesting, I get the vague sense that prior to the vote then the majority of English people would have been in favour of Scotland staying in but this is changing!
Actually playing strategy it would make sense for the Tories to have a no in a EU referendum, if that happens Scotland would be in a tricky situation.
-
5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.
I think that is interesting, I get the vague sense that prior to the vote then the majority of English people would have been in favour of Scotland staying in but this is changing!
Actually playing strategy it would make sense for the Tories to have a no in a EU referendum, if that happens Scotland would be in a tricky situation.
There are probably more 'what ifs' around this election than previously because of the potential impact on Labour here in Scotland, and elsewhere too, combined with the probable implosion of the Lib-Dems. My view is that UKIP are clowns full of noise and bluster who receive far more coverage that they merit, and even if they do gain a few seats in England it will be a lot less than the potential gain in seats that the SNP might achieve here in Scotland. It looks to me like we are in for a game of political musical chairs.
When it comes to a EU referendum if the Tories do retain power after May then, and I'm sure I read this somewhere recently, the results would be available separately for each of the UK countries and if Scotland, along with its increased SNP representation, voted to stay in the EU and England didn't it seems possible that the UK simply couldn't continue.
-
45% of the electorate is a pretty sizeable proportion. The Tories and Labour both got enormous numbers of seats in 2010 with less than 45% of the vote.
It wasn't 45% of the electorate thoguh
If I substitute "people who voted" for "electorate" the point still stands.
-
The price of oil is expected to go down to 40 dollars a Barrel. How will Scotland sustain itself without UK subsidising their students, free prescriptions and other welfare handouts?
-
There are probably more 'what ifs' around this election than previously because of the potential impact on Labour here in Scotland, and elsewhere too, combined with the probable implosion of the Lib-Dems. My view is that UKIP are clowns full of noise and bluster who receive far more coverage that they merit, and even if they do gain a few seats in England it will be a lot less than the potential gain in seats that the SNP might achieve here in Scotland. It looks to me like we are in for a game of political musical chairs.
I was shocked UKIP got 10% of the vote in Scotland last EU election!
When it comes to a EU referendum if the Tories do retain power after May then, and I'm sure I read this somewhere recently, the results would be available separately for each of the UK countries and if Scotland, along with its increased SNP representation, voted to stay in the EU and England didn't it seems possible that the UK simply couldn't continue.
Yes I think a yes vote and its inevitable that Scotland will leave the Union and become independent, free to reapply or remain in the EU as they see fit.
-
Actually playing strategy it would make sense for the Tories to have a no in a EU referendum, if that happens Scotland would be in a tricky situation.
Yes, I think that is what the majority of Tory MPs want from a EU referendum - a vote to stay in Europe. That would help silence the Tory MPs who would like to see us out of it, UKIP and the SNP since any push for independence could be countered by saying that the majority of Scots want to stay in the EU, something that independence couldn't guarantee.
-
Actually playing strategy it would make sense for the Tories to have a no in a EU referendum, if that happens Scotland would be in a tricky situation.
Yes, I think that is what the majority of Tory MPs want from a EU referendum - a vote to stay in Europe. That would help silence UKIP and the SNP since any push for independence could be countered by saying that the majority of Scots want to stay in the EU, something that independence couldn't guarantee.
But if the UK in general voted for leaving the EU and Scotland voted to stay, there might be a problem.
-
The price of oil is expected to go down to 40 dollars a Barrel. How will Scotland sustain itself without UK subsidising their students, free prescriptions and other welfare handouts?
The oil price will recover. But it's boom and bust on steroids.
-
There are a variety of reasons.
1. If you are outside Scotland it is perhaps easy to forget that the SNP are not just a fringe party - they are the government in Scotland for all the devolved powers, which are increasing following the referendum result, and I'd have to say they have done a reasonable job of it.
2. The SNP here in Scotland (and I haven't ever voted for them as yet) are clearly more competent than Scottish Labour of late, who are the only serious opposition to the SNP here, but they have imploded in recent years due to poor leadership and links with the main UK Labour party. I doubt that parachuting in Jim Murphy will be enough to save them.
3. The result of the referendum last year, and the frantic last minute interventions by Gordon Brown etc, might have achieved a No result but not by a decisive margin given that 45% of Scots wanted out of the UK. Independence is still an aim for many Scots, as the post-referendum rise in support for the SNP since then suggests, and it seems that those Labour supporters who voted Yes last September (as I did) will now switch their vote to the SNP in May (as I will).
4. The situation as regards Scottish MP's in Westminster is that should the SNP gain substantially from Labour here in Scotland the shift in numbers could be sufficient to deny Labour either an outright majority or enough seats to go into a coalition: the Tories are not a factor here, and the Lib-Dems are likely to be routed as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories, and depending on the number of SNP seats won then the SNP could have a greater influence in Westminster.
5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.
Whatever happens it should be interesting!
Interesting observations and I'd mostly agree.
But on 4 - be careful what you wish for. Sure the Tories aren't in the game in Scotland, but all this means is that redistributing seats in Scotland merely moves around the non Tory seats between other parties. Given that pretty well all political observers think we will be in hung parliament territory again after May the issue will be whether we end up with a Tory lead coalition (or minority) government or a Labour lead coalition (or minority) government. Nothing else is really likely given the polls.
Who is in government will likely depend on which of Labour or the Tories have most seats. So every seat the SNP takes off Labour is one seat nearer to ensuring a Tory lead government after the election.
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
-
But if the UK in general voted for leaving the EU and Scotland voted to stay, there might be a problem.
Having discussed this with friends and family across England Wales, I get the impression that the UK (or at least England and Wales) will vote to stay in. Don't know about N. Ireland. As for Scotland, there seems to have been a dichotomy; vote for independence and, at least for a time, an exit from Europe or vote to remain as part of the UK and give a bigger majority for the UK to stay in Europe.
-
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture. Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes. The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre. The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.
-
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture. Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes. The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre. The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.
This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.
The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.
Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.
-
Europe is rediscovering nationalism
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/europe-rediscovers-nationalism
-
Europe is rediscovering nationalism
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/europe-rediscovers-nationalism
Which is in terms of the SNP irrelevant given that its policies are the polar opposite of what is being covered in the article.
-
Really Mr. Nearly, didn't that SNP just try to end it's union with the rest of the UK? Sounds a bit nationalistic to me. You now the far left and the far right have much in common. Just as communism and fascism do.
-
Really Mr. Nearly, didn't that SNP just try to end it's union with the rest of the UK? Sounds a bit nationalistic to me. You now the far left and the far right have much in common. Just as communism and fascism do.
Yes, it tried to end the union but it was also supporting staying in Europe, increasing immigration and indeed one of the charges from the Unionist parties was that it would enter the Schengen agreement - so in terms of the article you linked to and how it classified nationalism, essentially ethnic, rather than civic the complete opposite.
Are you saying that when the Baltic states broke away from the Soviet Union they were being communist? Or Fascist?
-
It's not just the SNP who are thriving; so are the Greens, UKIP, and I think just about anyone but the main Parties. I believe people are turning to these others because of the disillusion with the established order.
-
There are a variety of reasons.
1. If you are outside Scotland it is perhaps easy to forget that the SNP are not just a fringe party - they are the government in Scotland for all the devolved powers, which are increasing following the referendum result, and I'd have to say they have done a reasonable job of it.
2. The SNP here in Scotland (and I haven't ever voted for them as yet) are clearly more competent than Scottish Labour of late, who are the only serious opposition to the SNP here, but they have imploded in recent years due to poor leadership and links with the main UK Labour party. I doubt that parachuting in Jim Murphy will be enough to save them.
3. The result of the referendum last year, and the frantic last minute interventions by Gordon Brown etc, might have achieved a No result but not by a decisive margin given that 45% of Scots wanted out of the UK. Independence is still an aim for many Scots, as the post-referendum rise in support for the SNP since then suggests, and it seems that those Labour supporters who voted Yes last September (as I did) will now switch their vote to the SNP in May (as I will).
4. The situation as regards Scottish MP's in Westminster is that should the SNP gain substantially from Labour here in Scotland the shift in numbers could be sufficient to deny Labour either an outright majority or enough seats to go into a coalition: the Tories are not a factor here, and the Lib-Dems are likely to be routed as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories, and depending on the number of SNP seats won then the SNP could have a greater influence in Westminster.
5. We are being told here that a vote for the SNP in May will keep the Tories in UK power but, and speaking for myself I think it is a risk that I'll take since I couldn't bring myself to support Labour any more. A friend of mine has a theory (his not mine!) that should the SNP weaken Labour here in Scotland, and should Labour do badly in England, that a Tory government might well encourage Scottish independence as a means of retaining power in England, Wales and NI - in that they know they have no prospect of being a major force here in Scotland so that removing Scottish seats from Westminster might give the Tories a long-term in-built majority elsewhere in the current UK.
Whatever happens it should be interesting!
Interesting observations and I'd mostly agree.
But on 4 - be careful what you wish for. Sure the Tories aren't in the game in Scotland, but all this means is that redistributing seats in Scotland merely moves around the non Tory seats between other parties. Given that pretty well all political observers think we will be in hung parliament territory again after May the issue will be whether we end up with a Tory lead coalition (or minority) government or a Labour lead coalition (or minority) government. Nothing else is really likely given the polls.
Who is in government will likely depend on which of Labour or the Tories have most seats. So every seat the SNP takes off Labour is one seat nearer to ensuring a Tory lead government after the election.
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
The only fault I see with that analysis is that I believe any coalition will involve at least three parties which will hamper the larger party from doing anything near what they would desire, or be ideal for them, and could result in a GE 18 months later. So on that outcome the threat that if you vote SNP you get Tory is very weak just as it is to say if you vote UKIP you get Labour.
-
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture. Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes. The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre. The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.
This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.
The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.
Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.
And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?
-
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture. Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes. The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre. The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.
This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.
The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.
Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.
And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?
And there lies the slightly bizarre anomaly.
The SNP are more likely to achieve a Labour coalition by doing less well. If the SNP take enough seats off Labour the result is likely to be that the Tories have the most seats and will therefore run the next government.
Stange but true.
-
Er no it's not. In addition to being the largest party, any party forming a govt would have to be able to face a vote on forming that govt. If both Lab and Snp were capable of a majority then they could stop any Tory attempt to form a govt.
-
So ask yourself which would be better for the UK and for Scotland:
1. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 40 seats and that means the Tories are the largest party and the government is Tory lead with UKIP support (perhaps).
or
2. A 2010 GE election result where the SNP end up with 20 seats and that means Labour are the largest party and the government is Labour lead with SNP support (perhaps).
Neither, PD, but I'd rather see a Tory-led coalition that made sure that UKIP, the SNP and Labour were all out of the picture. Highly unlikely to occur, but at least that would provide for a constructive tension within Government, rather than having a coalition of the left that wouldn't question some basic attitudes. The irony is that, of the 9 or 10 'biggish' parties (Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP) only 3 are clearly right of centre. The SNP were traditionally just about right of centre, but moved towards the other side of the centre in recent years.
This wasn't aimed at you, because obviously you aren't a voter in Scotland so not faced with this dilemma.
The point I was making is that there is a lot of discussion about the best way to ensure the greatest influence for Scotland and for the SNP following the general election in terms of voting strategy for people (like Gordon) who are traditionally Labor but considering the SNP in May.
Of those 2 scenarios the one with the most influence for Scotland and potentially the SNP would be where there is a Labour lead government supported (perhaps even in coalition) with the SNP.
And that's probably what Gordon is saying. He's voting SNP to get a Labour coalition. Unless all the Scots get together to fix it how will anyone know how to balance your scheme out?
And there lies the slightly bizarre anomaly.
The SNP are more likely to achieve a Labour coalition by doing less well. If the SNP take enough seats off Labour the result is likely to be that the Tories have the most seats and will therefore run the next government.
Stange but true.
Not strange because I can do the maths and worked out the logic of it ages ago. But you didn't address my poser. For your scheme to work the Scots would have to get together and decide who is going to vote which way to get your desired effect of a Labour coalition with the SNP. I don't think SNP voters are going to buy your fear factor approach to make them vote Labour; who they now pretty much hate - and for good reason!!!
-
This relatively unbiased analysis of the Ashcroft and Yougove polls at the start of this month makes interesting reading.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/02/labour-still-deep-trouble/
I'm surprised (or possibly not) that the election of a new leader to the Scottish Labour branch office didn't generate much of a feel good factor.
-
My intention is to vote SNP. I fully recognise the result of the referendum last year but, and like many other Scots, I would still like to see Scotland become independent.
The best hope for that would be a UK scenario whereby independence for Scotland becomes a serious option as the result of very different UK political conditions post-May than those of 2014. For example, should the Tories lead the next UK government and there is a UK-wide EU referendum that results in a differing view in Scotland compared to England and Wales, that may be a political scenario in which the UK as it stands just isn't viable.
As I said earlier, it looks like becoming a game of political musical chairs with more permutations, and therefore greater uncertainty, than is usually the case.
-
Er no it's not. In addition to being the largest party, any party forming a govt would have to be able to face a vote on forming that govt. If both Lab and Snp were capable of a majority then they could stop any Tory attempt to form a govt.
Firstly it isn't a foregone conclusion that a minority government cannot govern - the politics are rather complicated. Parties that bring down a government have to think very carefully how that might be perceived by the electorate in what would almost certain involve a second general election. If the Tories had the most seats (and therefore probably in the eyes of the electorate the greatest 'right' to lead a government) how would it be perceived if that government was brought down by a party with less seats and a party that only stands for election in Scotland. Hmm not convinced I'd buy the likelihood of the electorate taking kindly to those parties in a subsequent general election.
But of course you are right in theory, but this is really an issue about preventing a Labour overall majority - but no-one is seriously suggesting this as likely. So in the territory where Labour doesn't have an overall majority but Labour + SNP do then whether the SNP has a few more or a few less doesn't markedly affect the situation as they are borrowing one from the other. Until, of course, Labour ends up with less seats than the Tories in which case the default would be that the Tories will claim should legitimately be able to form the next Government, and if thwarted in doing so by parties with fewer seats would almost certainly go for a 'snap' Autumn election (which they can still do under the rules but just need a vote) - Labour and the SNP would be dead in the water if they prevented this if they were thwarting/trying to bring votes of no confidence.
So overall the best scenario for the SNP in terms of power and influence is that Labour are the largest party but don't have an overall majority - but of course the latter doesn't seem on the cards and the greatest threat to the former is, well, the SNP themselves.
Strange times.
-
As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'. If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days? ;) :P
-
Just to pick up on Prof D's post, I apologise that my post might be unclear and this has lead to a misinterpretation. I didn't mean to suggest that the parties bring down a formed govt and cause a further election. Rather after the election the parties have to negotiate to see who could form a govt. If there is an absolute majority between lab and Snp then they could even without a formal coalition stop anyone else forming the govt, and then by agreeing to have a support in place either enter in to a formal coalition or a minority Labour Govt with support on a case by case basis.
-
As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'. If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days? ;) :P
A falag is only important because of the concept it represents.
The concept of this disunited Kingdom which the butcher's apron represents would be anathema to many nationalists regardless of the artificiallity of the flag.
-
So what exactly makes the Union Jack artificial? Your old hatreds? Look what those English did to my great, great blah, blah , blah. Poor mistreated Scotlandshire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v56nJU-8S0
-
So what exactly makes the Union Jack artificial? Your old hatreds? Look what those English did to my great, great blah, blah , blah. Poor mistreated Scotlandshire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v56nJU-8S0
Don't you mean the union flag?
A Jack is a naval ensign.
What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?
Since you're fond of links, here's one from the BBC, no less...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20966371
So, since there's nothing enshrined in law, using it as an alternative to toilet roll is quite in order!
-
What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?
It isn't as simple as that, Anchor in that there is evidence that the 'St Patrick's' saltire was used to represent Ireland before it was adopted by the Order of St Patrick - a British chivalric order - in 1783. As such, the fact that the part of Ireland most associated with Britain remains in the UK suggests that its retention was actually more representative than it had been of Ireland as a whole.
-
As we all know, the colours of the UK are often referred to as 'red, white and blue'. If, instead, this had been 'blue, white and red', or even 'blue, red and white', would nationalists have found as much support in the early days? ;) :P
A falag is only important because of the concept it represents.
The concept of this disunited Kingdom which the butcher's apron represents would be anathema to many nationalists regardless of the artificiallity of the flag.
Why is it anymore artificial than the notion of a country with a border drawn on a map.
Nations are completely artificial constructs too. Sure some (purely Island nations) make sense geographically, but anywhere where there is a land border is artificial.
-
So, since there's nothing enshrined in law, using it as an alternative to toilet roll is quite in order!
Sounds like nationalism to me, Brits always such rebels. :)
-
What makes it artificial is the renaming of a cross in honour of St Patrick when Westminster absorbed the whole of Ireland as part of its' bloated empire in 1800.
Before then, the "St Patrick's Cross" didn't exist.
Surely when the majority of Ireland regained their freedom, the artifical cross should have been dropped and a new flag created to reflect the reduced state?
It isn't as simple as that, Anchor in that there is evidence that the 'St Patrick's' saltire was used to represent Ireland before it was adopted by the Order of St Patrick - a British chivalric order - in 1783. As such, the fact that the part of Ireland most associated with Britain remains in the UK suggests that its retention was actually more representative than it had been of Ireland as a whole.
-
if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.
-
if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.
And from where were they originally 'planted'? Mostly Scotland, if my understanding of Irish history is correct. ;)
-
if you mean the "Fit\\zgeralds Cross", Hope - later renamed the St Patricks Cross, then it simply adds to the antipathy of the native Irish - since that particular family were a shower of landowners planted by the 'brits' in another hamfisted attempt to subjugate the natives.
Most Irish looked on the emblem with loathing until very recently.
And from where were they originally 'planted'? Mostly Scotland, if my understanding of Irish history is correct. ;)
-
James VI certainly planted Scots Protestants, Hope - but the Tudors beat him to it, planting English families in the Dublin area - and the infamous 'pale'. Besides, you can bet that any family with a surname starting "Fitz", has Anglo-Norman roots.
-
Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon last week, and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be. She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.
-
Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon last week, and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be. She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.
I first met Nicola when she was a teenager.
I've met her a few times since, and, as far as I'm concerned, she's far less tractable than Salmond ever was - and more left leaning.
-
Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon last week, and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be. She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.
I missed that. What were her ideas about how Scotland would cope with the low oil prices tgat are predicted for the next few years and how does she propose to support those areas tgat will be taking huge hits in the current slashing of jobs and projects in the oil and gas sector?
-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/oil-prices-plummet-leading-academic-4800452
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/08/nicola-sturgeon-denies-oil-price-plunge-harm-scotland
Where Sturgeon is correct is tge the UK governments have mismanaged the oil and gas industry. The coalition were given expert advice on how to maximise the industry's potential and protect it from a crash exactly like tge one we have now and Osbourne junked it in favour of Justine Greening's (erroneous) advice that a windfall tax was a vote winner. The result was mothballing of projects and a mistrust of the UK government within the industry that of course affected Scotland the most.
Where she is talking crap however is the idea that we will be seeing hundred dollar barrel oil prices by 2016. If the industry (and Scotland) are lucky $70 dollar prices will be reached some time in the next five years but nobody expects to see $100 dollar/barrel anytime soon, if ever, and even that doesn't touch the $113 the SNP modelled their economic policy on. Leaving aside Sturgeons admission that Scotland would have effectively got lucky in avoiding 2015 oil prices (presumably official policy is to cross one's fingers that it didn't happen again) the best estimates are for a fifty dollar/barrel deficit between forecast and reality in oil price in a fledgling economy with no stable currency, no reserves and a reputation for reneging (or threatening to renege) on its debt.
-
Where she is talking crap however is the idea that we will be seeing hundred dollar barrel oil prices by 2016. If the industry (and Scotland) are lucky $70 dollar prices will be reached some time in the next five years but nobody expects to see $100 dollar/barrel anytime soon, if ever, and even that doesn't touch the $113 the SNP modelled their economic policy on. Leaving aside Sturgeons admission that Scotland would have effectively got lucky in avoiding 2015 oil prices (presumably official policy is to cross one's fingers that it didn't happen again) the best estimates are for a fifty dollar/barrel deficit between forecast and reality in oil price in a fledgling economy with no stable currency, no reserves and a reputation for reneging (or threatening to renege) on its debt.
Given how reliant an independent Scottish economy would be on oil and the current oil price I think we can safely say that Scotland dodged a bullet last September. Had they attained independence it would have been serious squeaky bum time in Holyrood economy central at the moment.
The overall UK economy can readily ride the vagaries of oil price fluctuations - the Scottish economy on its own couldn't.
-
Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon last week, and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be. She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.
I missed that. What were her ideas about how Scotland would cope with the low oil prices tgat are predicted for the next few years and how does she propose to support those areas tgat will be taking huge hits in the current slashing of jobs and projects in the oil and gas sector?
She didn't dwell on the oil prices bit, but I thought her ideas on the austerity programme interesting. She advocates something like ditching all these cut-backs, as the US has, and relying on taxes, I think she said, but I may have mis-heard!! Certainly, the US has done as well, or better, than we have in recovering from the recession.
-
The U.S. has had more private investment which has boosted its recovery. The reasons for this are various and linked to our lack of competition in the banking sector, our much higher energy costs, and (possibly the biggest whammy) the fact we are seen as high risk because of the links within our banking system to the euro. And whilst the euro continues to lurch from crisis to crisis we will remain unattractive to investors.
Relying on taxation is ridiculous without the private sector creating enough wealth to be taxed. It will simply end up with everyone paying more tax (VAT hikes probably) and taxes on businesses which get passed onto the consumers, resulting in reduced spending and reduced economic activity.
-
Some other facts on the U.S. economy. Half the population live in poverty and only 12% of workers belong to a union.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
-
Some other facts on the U.S. economy. Half the population live in poverty and only 12% of workers belong to a union.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Maybe, but are the cut-backs to welfare, making the poor poorer, and the cutting of tax for the very rich the road you prefer to walk? We have food banks and poverty here which are resonant of the 30's. And at the end of it the deficit is as bad as ever.
-
Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
-
Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
Well our method is certainly doing nothing for the poor, and neither is it working. I doubt many MP's, bankers, tax evaders/avoiders are wondering what they're going to eat tomorrow. It is the poor who suffer, and are bearing a huge slice of the discomfort, though it was the Banks who caused the trouble. So we are in no position to say what this Government is doing is either correct, fair, or effective.
-
Of course what we have hasn't worked. But the imbalance in the States is worse in spite of them having a better recovery. Regardless, we aren't in apposition to attract the investment necessary to increase our tax take greatly without it squeezing too many ordinary people.
The fact is we aren't an economic superpower in the way that the States is. Quite what would work in the current situation is a mystery though - the euro being a big headache on top of the deficit.
-
Of course what we have hasn't worked. But the imbalance in the States is worse in spite of them having a better recovery. Regardless, we aren't in apposition to attract the investment necessary to increase our tax take greatly without it squeezing too many ordinary people.
The fact is we aren't an economic superpower in the way that the States is. Quite what would work in the current situation is a mystery though - the euro being a big headache on top of the deficit.
The imbalance in the States is as it has always been - they don't have a Welfare State and however prosperous they have been, they have always had a hardcore of real poverty.
-
Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
There is no doubt that the USA has recovered much better following the recession than we have. I'm not sure the issue of the income disparity between the rich and poor is entirely relevant, because there has always been a much greater disparity in the US compared to the UK and most european countries.
What I do know is that over the past three or four years we have started to see an entirely new phenomenon in the UK - namely food banks. Their presence really is disgraceful within a civilised and rich society.
-
The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
Where do you get those data from.
The link you provided indicated that the number of people living on two dollars a day has doubled from 1996 to 2011. I don't see how that equates to doubling under the recovery, which presumable is from 2009 (when the USA exited recession) to now.
I'm not saying the numbers aren't shocking (they are) but I can't see anything which justifies your point about the recovering not touching the poor or actually that their situation has got worse during the recovery.
-
Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
There is no doubt that the USA has recovered much better following the recession than we have. I'm not sure the issue of the income disparity between the rich and poor is entirely relevant, because there has always been a much greater disparity in the US compared to the UK and most european countries.
What I do know is that over the past three or four years we have started to see an entirely new phenomenon in the UK - namely food banks. Their presence really is disgraceful within a civilised and rich society.
I agree. What is really frightening is how demand on them has increased so rapidly in just the past year or so. It isn't only those on benefits; rising costs and static wages also contribute, as has the price of many foods going up. I've spoken to,people on Mumsnet who have both parties in work and who have Ł20/week food budget to feed a family of four.
Something is badly wrong.
-
The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.
Where do you get those data from.
The link you provided indicated that the number of people living on two dollars a day has doubled from 1996 to 2011. I don't see how that equates to doubling under the recovery, which presumable is from 2009 (when the USA exited recession) to now.
I'm not saying the numbers aren't shocking (they are) but I can't see anything which justifies your point about the recovering not touching the poor or actually that their situation has got worse during the recovery.
If the U.S. method was one we wanted to emulate wouldn't we be seeing a fall in the numbers in poverty?
-
My intention is to vote SNP. I fully recognise the result of the referendum last year but, and like many other Scots, I would still like to see Scotland become independent.
But not the majority of Scots.
-
Rhi,
I don't know about your wiki stats.
The ones I've seen tell me that 1 in 5 Brits live in poverty and 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty. That's about 14%. Being in the USA quite a bit and family all over that country, the half the pop in poverty stat you got just isn't what I see down there. And believe me if it was over half the pop, it would be a huge issue down there every 2yrs come elections for the House.
Oh and 1 in 9 live in poverty here in Canada.
-
Rhi,
I don't know about your wiki stats.
The ones I've seen tell me that 1 in 5 Brits live in poverty and 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty. That's about 14%. Being in the USA quite a bit and family all over that country, the half the pop in poverty stat you got just isn't what I see down there. And believe me if it was over half the pop, it would be a huge issue down there every 2yrs come elections for the House.
Oh and 1 in 9 live in poverty here in Canada.
Which is all a bit of an irrelevance as we are talking about three countries (USA, Canada and the UK - Oh and before some nit picker says it - the UK isn't really a country - yawn- you know full well what I mean) which could easily lift its populations out of poverty if they so wished.
That is the real issue and shame of the situation. There just is not the political will.
-
So we are in no position to say what this Government is doing is either correct, fair, or effective.
But as has already been noted, we are hamstrung by the problems in the Eurozone since something like 45% of our export business is with that area (down from ~51% in 2011/12). The problems in Ukraine and the embargo on exports to Russia have also caused problems. Those are both issues that any Government would have had to contend with, and from discussions I've had with Welsh MPs and AMs, the plans that Labour put forward in 2010 would probably have put us into even greater jeopardy than the Coalition's actions have. That's one of the major differences between the British and the American economies.
-
I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!
-
Dear Mr. trent,
I can't stand when Brits exaggerate and sometimes lie about my cousin to my south. So back off, I'll correct the facts if I want. (smiley)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html
-
Dear Mr. trent,
I can't stand when Brits exaggerate and sometimes lie about my cousin to my south. So back off, I'll correct the facts if I want. (smiley)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html
I was just pointing out the stupidity of arguing about who has more "poor" people when we have it within our power to change so many peoples lives if we had the collective will to do so.
I don't really care much about the %'s involved, because that is just a distraction that the politicians are happy to use instead of focussing on the need for real change to our system.
But you carry on playing the "my friends are better than your friends" game if you want to.
-
I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!
Dear Jim,
And she seemed quite reasonable unlike Heseltine who was telling us that a vote for SNP, Greens, UKIP was a protest vote, of course it is a protest vote ya silly auld duffer, protesting against Labour, Conservative years of F****** it up.
Which tells me only one thing, politicians are so out of touch with the ordinary voter, they can't see what is under their bloody noses.
Gonnagle.
-
I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!
Dear Jim,
And she seemed quite reasonable unlike Heseltine who was telling us that a vote for SNP, Greens, UKIP was a protest vote, of course it is a protest vote ya silly auld duffer, protesting against Labour, Conservative years of F****** it up.
Which tells me only one thing, politicians are so out of touch with the ordinary voter, they can't see what is under their bloody noses.
Gonnagle.
Heseltine was completly out of it. Not understanding multi-party democracy, not understanding Russia (they just need a good hug from what he was saying), disagree with him on trident. He was just plain annoying
-
Both the Tories and the Red Tories tell us that a vote for SNP would put the other party in power..
It didn't in 2010, or any other election in recent times....scaremongering tactics to avoid facing up to the reality of a very much more powerful SNP than Salmond ever had.
-
it doesn't help that if you take Heseltines line then if you don't like Labour or the Tories then there is no point in you voting as you should only be voting for them. Its not exactly a way of engaging voters into the process if you are busy telling them that they are wasting their votes by going to a smaller party as votes only count if they are for the big two
-
Dear Mr. trent,
Is my loving my American kin folk, Americans in general and their nation a problem for you? You write about me going ahead and playing my friends are better than yours thingy. I'm not doing that at all. Just how do you know I think my American kin folk are better than who ever your friends are? Exaggerations and lies should never be left unchallenged. Smart people know that. (smilies) No it's you on you soap box, looking down you nose, that is the game being payed. Your game sucks by the way.
Oh, and what does world poverty got to do with the SNP trent. Too funny
-
Both the Tories and the Red Tories tell us that a vote for SNP would put the other party in power.
Err, what.
Sure there is a credible argument that voting SNP helps the Tories win power (as it makes it less likely that Labour would have the largest number of seats). But I've never heard a credible argument that voting SNP helps Labour get in - how so, given that there is only one Tory seat in Scotland so voting SNP can hardly harm the Tories, nor is it likely to help Labour.
-
The argument, such as it is, is not about Tory or Labour seats in Scotland but Lib Dems. It could be that the Libs lose 9 of their seats in May and there is a good chance that these would be picked up by the SNP. The blue Tory argument is that this would be a block more likely to make a Labour govt as the SNP are committed to not supporting the Tories. As previously discussed, just being the largest party doesn't mean you get to form the govt and if a majority block could be created of other parties, would be entirely academic.
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
-
Dear Mr. trent,
Is my loving my American kin folk, Americans in general and their nation a problem for you? You write about me going ahead and playing my friends are better than yours thingy. I'm not doing that at all. Just how do you know I think my American kin folk are better than who ever your friends are? Exaggerations and lies should never be left unchallenged. Smart people know that. (smilies) No it's you on you soap box, looking down you nose, that is the game being payed. Your game sucks by the way.
Oh, and what does world poverty got to do with the SNP trent. Too funny
No problem with you loving your American kin folk (how quaint).
On all the other things if you care to re-read my posts - instead of what you think my response was - I was pointing out the ludicrous situation that we live in wealthy nations - that still contrive to have poor people living amongst them - how that is looking down my nose at anyone, apart from perhaps our elected governments I don't know.
As to what world poverty has to do with the SNP, I don't know - but as I was responding to your post that talked about the relative levels of poverty in nations - perhaps you could say why you were talking about it originally. :P
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.
Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.
Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.
I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.
My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.
Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.
That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.
Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.
I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.
My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.
Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.
That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).
Is there a reason why you chose 2005 which I didn't mention?
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.
Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.
I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.
My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.
Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.
That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).
Is there a reason why you chose 2005 which I didn't mention?
Because it is the election where there is the most credible claims that the Scottish vote tipped the balance, although as I pointed out you can make the same claim for a number of other UK regions just as strongly.
But the key point I was making was that AM had conveniently forgotten to mention the recent cases where the Scottish vote was reflected in the government that ended up in Westminster.
-
A fisherman died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front of the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, 'What are all those clocks?'
St. Peter answered, 'Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone who has ever been on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock move.'
... 'Oh', said the man. 'Whose clock is that?'
'That's Mother Teresa's', replied St. Peter. 'The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.'
'Incredible', ...said the man. 'And whose clock is that one?'
St. Peter responded, 'That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.'
'Where's the clock for the Labour party?' asked the man.
St Peter replied, 'We’re using it as a ceiling fan.
-
Blue Tories and Red Tories
http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labours-new-policy-vote-tory/
-
Not sure which thread to put this on?
"Britain's electoral system The breaking point" Economist mag
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21644142-two-party-political-system-under-unprecedented-pressure-breaking-point
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
-
Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.
The same thing applies to your fellow countrymen in English regions.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
-
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
-
Since neither party of red or blue Tories is going to get close to a majority of votes, either party getting a majority because of our voting system would be bad in my view.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
-
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
-
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
Just imagine how incensed the petty Nats would be if another part of the country, e.g. South West, or London effectively said they couldn't give a damn about the rest of the UK, all they were interested in was feathering their own bed in their own little area in the UK.
What an appalling attitude, and more so from someone who I think is broadly left of centre in politics - what ever happened to the collective good eh AM - or does it somehow cease to exist beyond an arbitrary line drawn on a map hundreds of years ago. If so I feel sorry for you. We need to be more outward looking as a country and as a global population. We need to understand that ultimately a benefit to your neighbour pays back and that dividing the world into tiny arbitrary 'countries' that selfishly defend the primacy of the nation state (or really just their nation state) over the broader collective good is the road to ruin and a dangerously failed and outmoded concept.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.
Not much of a socialist are you. :)
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.
Not much of a socialist are you. :)
Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post ;)
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.
Not much of a socialist are you. :)
Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post ;)
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
-
With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.
Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.
Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.
Not much of a socialist are you. :)
Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post ;)
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
Exactly the same words could have come out of the mouth of Farage or other UKIPers, merely with 'Westminster' changed to Brussels.
Petty nationalists - the same the world over. For the record I am more interested in people than in arbitrary lines drawn on maps hundreds of years ago. Which is why I am not a nationalist - add to that, of course, the appalling track record of nationalism in relation to conflict down the centuries.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
Nor is it a particularly socialist or left of centre attitude, and I thought AM was left of centre in his politics. Just goes to show how nationalism can distort priorities etc.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
I don't accept the concept of a UK, rhi.
I believe the best interests of the people of Scotland are served when the governance of Scotland is in the hands of the people of Scotland.
Only then can we be free to pursue an international agenda, free from the constraints of 'you scratch my back' aid grants.
Even with its' very limited abilities, the Scots Parliament, under an initiative started by former Labour FM Jack McConnell, started work in Malawi, with which nation Scotland had historical ties.
We have made a difference there - the fact being acknowledged by UNICEF. If we had the ability, we could make a REAL difference.
As far as domestic policies go; surely a political party must concentrate on maintaining its' principles? Any such movement which ditches principles for populism is no party worth voting for.
The SNP has never made any secret of being unashamedly left of centre, and vehemently opposed to the Labour Tory love festival which sees the pathetic Miliband pledged to continue the Tory austerity cuts.
SNP could not afford to support any such policies....they would lose members like Labour principles.
There will be no coalition....because no Westminster party would meet the terms SNP would insist on making for such a coalition to happen.
The first would be the end of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil.
The second would be full and complete fiscal autonomy, limited control of broadcasting rights, statuary input on defence, foriegn and European policies....and a moritorium on a referendum on EU membership.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
Nor is it a particularly socialist or left of centre attitude, and I thought AM was left of centre in his politics. Just goes to show how nationalism can distort priorities etc.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, PD, because in every other way AM is the gentlest, humblest kind of Christian. I hadn't really appreciated until recently just how toxic nationalism can be to good people.
-
I don't accept the concept of a UK, rhi.
I believe the best interests of the people of Scotland are served when the governance of Scotland is in the hands of the people of Scotland.
I don't accept the concept of the EU, rhi.
I believe the best interests of the people of the UK are served when the governance of the UK is in the hands of the people of the UK.
A comment that Farage could easily have made - indeed has probably made, in perhaps slightly altered words, many times.
Petty nationalists - the same the world over.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
Nor is it a particularly socialist or left of centre attitude, and I thought AM was left of centre in his politics. Just goes to show how nationalism can distort priorities etc.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, PD, because in every other way AM is the gentlest, humblest kind of Christian. I hadn't really appreciated until recently just how toxic nationalism can be to good people.
I don't see any prospects of either Labour or Tory parties ending the austerity cuts - both have pledged to continue them.
That's why I would never contemplate voting for them: I know of too many disabled people north and south of the border whose lives have been made miserable, limited and, in some documented cases, terminated by these inhuman policies.
A vote for either of these two unprincipled parties would do nothing to change this situation.
I can't, therefore, do anything about the situation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I can only support a party which maintains the promise that this situation will not continue in Scotland.
-
I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't a particularly Christian attitude.
Nor is it a particularly socialist or left of centre attitude, and I thought AM was left of centre in his politics. Just goes to show how nationalism can distort priorities etc.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, PD, because in every other way AM is the gentlest, humblest kind of Christian. I hadn't really appreciated until recently just how toxic nationalism can be to good people.
I don't see any prospects of either Labour or Tory parties ending the austerity cuts - both have pledged to continue them.
That's why I would never contemplate voting for them: I know of too many disabled people north and south of the border whose lives have been made miserable, limited and, in some documented cases, terminated by these inhuman policies.
A vote for either of these two unprincipled parties would do nothing to change this situation.
I can't, therefore, do anything about the situation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I can only support a party which maintains the promise that this situation will not continue in Scotland.
our fundamental problem AM is that you equate nationalism with some particular brand of politics that you like. Nationalism is merely the view that people within some arbitrary line drawn on a map should see their country (defined by that arbitrary line) as having primacy within the hierarchical series of regions, themselves all based on arbitrary lines drawn on maps (e.g. Nithsdale, Dumfries & Galloway, Scotland, UK, EU) it in no way defines a type of politics.
If you belief in democracy within your precious independent Scotland (were that to occur) there is nothing that prevents the Scots people voting in a right wing party bent on austerity, shrinking the state etc etc. I can happen, and indeed has done in the past, where in the mid 20thC Scotland voted Tory rather than Labour.
It is my strong opinion that had Scotland voted for independence last September (fortunately they dodged the bullet) given the massive economic problems they would have had with an economy over-reliant on oil and oil prices dropping through the floor that there would be a significant shift to the right, as an independent government would have to raise the taxes rather than just spend them, as they do now.
-
The Brent crude oil price isn't going to recover to three figures for years, if ever. A fiscally independent Scotland would have austerity to match or exceed that of Greece.
-
The Brent crude oil price isn't going to recover to three figures for years, if ever. A fiscally independent Scotland would have austerity to match or exceed that of Greece.
Eh?
Oil is a bonus, not a necessity.
Mind you, we'd have been a whole lot better off if the Westminster rabble had not squandered the income over the last three decades.
As per usual.
-
The Brent crude oil price isn't going to recover to three figures for years, if ever. A fiscally independent Scotland would have austerity to match or exceed that of Greece.
Eh?
Oil is a bonus, not a necessity.
Mind you, we'd have been a whole lot better off if the Westminster rabble had not squandered the income over the last three decades.
As per usual.
Rubbish - oil and gas revenues account for just shy of one quarter of GPD in Scotland. A quarter of your GDP is never 'a bonus' - it is a necessity. And reliance on one, very volatile sector for such a large part of your economy is highly risky.
Remember that the SNP were claiming that oil prices would be about $110 a barrel or more. Brent crude is currently $60 a barrel and fell below $50 last month.
If oil and gas are a small proportion of your economy such fluctuations can easily be death with elsewhere, but when they account for over 20%, you've got a big problem.
-
The Brent crude oil price isn't going to recover to three figures for years, if ever. A fiscally independent Scotland would have austerity to match or exceed that of Greece.
Not sure its problems would be of the scale of Greece but they would be very significant.
And the Scottish people have got used to spending per person way above average UK levels. Were they to have to pay for that themselves they would have to ask some very challenging questions, because the finances simply don't work. So with the huge crash in oil prices they'd need to fill the black hole somehow, either by austerity and very major cuts in public spending, or by raising taxes elsewhere in the economy, or borrowing (which as a new country with no track record would be much more costly that currently in the UK). None of those choices are ones that would be popular with the electorate.
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
The nation of the UK or just part of the UK?
-
The SNP are in a very enviable position for a political party. They have the ability to claim the “good” things for themselves and blame somebody else for the “bad” things.
Oh for a yes vote. It would have been very, very interesting to see how they would keep everything “free”, funded as it is now, plus the extra they would need to promote everything they promised to reach their socialist land of milk and honey.
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
The nation of the UK or just part of the UK?
A nation within a nation perhaps.
Anyone who puts a 'nation' first - i.e. an area of land or territory defined by an arbitrary line of a map, rather than putting people first is getting their priorities seriously the wrong way up.
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
The nation of the UK or just part of the UK?
A nation within a nation perhaps.
Anyone who puts a 'nation' first - i.e. an area of land or territory defined by an arbitrary line of a map, rather than putting people first is getting their priorities seriously the wrong way up.
Since the nation comprises the community of the realm of Scotland, what's your point?
The Scottish people are the Scottish nation - not some line on the map.
Those people are Scots regardless of race, creed or ethnic origin.
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
The nation of the UK or just part of the UK?
A nation within a nation perhaps.
Anyone who puts a 'nation' first - i.e. an area of land or territory defined by an arbitrary line of a map, rather than putting people first is getting their priorities seriously the wrong way up.
Since the nation comprises the community of the realm of Scotland, what's your point?
The Scottish people are the Scottish nation - not some line on the map.
Those people are Scots regardless of race, creed or ethnic origin.
Defined by a line of a map.
You can't have it both ways AM - you cannot detach yourself from the deeply nasty notion of nationality defined by ancestry, which of course really means race and ethnic origin etc. Yet also try to detach yourself from the notion of a nation defined by a line of a map.
So lets test this one out. My Dad lived in Dumfries when he died and had done for over 20 years. He was born in England and hadn't lived in Scotland prior to 1989. During that 20-odd years he contributed greatly to his local community in all sorts of ways. So much so that it was standing room only at his funeral. Is he part of your 'Scottish nation, or not'.
-
Dear ProfDavey,
As a NO voter I have never thought for one minute that Scotland could not go it alone, it certainly has the resources oil being just one of them.
For me it was never a question of could we, it was and still remains should we and for the same reasons you have listed.
The SNP would have had to do some serious sums after the price of oil dropped but oil is just one of Scotland's many resources.
Gonnagle.
-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.
The nation of the UK or just part of the UK?
A nation within a nation perhaps.
Anyone who puts a 'nation' first - i.e. an area of land or territory defined by an arbitrary line of a map, rather than putting people first is getting their priorities seriously the wrong way up.
Since the nation comprises the community of the realm of Scotland, what's your point?
The Scottish people are the Scottish nation - not some line on the map.
Those people are Scots regardless of race, creed or ethnic origin.
Defined by a line of a map.
You can't have it both ways AM - you cannot detach yourself from the deeply nasty notion of nationality defined by ancestry, which of course really means race and ethnic origin etc. Yet also try to detach yourself from the notion of a nation defined by a line of a map.
So lets test this one out. My Dad lived in Dumfries when he died and had done for over 20 years. He was born in England and hadn't lived in Scotland prior to 1989. During that 20-odd years he contributed greatly to his local community in all sorts of ways. So much so that it was standing room only at his funeral. Is he part of your 'Scottish nation, or not'.
-
Anyone who lives and isregistered to vote in the territory of Scotland has the right to bee Scots.
Should someon born and bred in Scotland or born of Scots parantage wish to claim Scottish nationality when we regain our status as an independent nation, they may do so, in the same way as someone seeking to become subjects of the outmoded farce of the united 'Kingdom'.
-
Anyone who lives and isregistered to vote in the territory of Scotland has the right to bee Scots.
So my Dad was part of your 'nation' yet had he decided to retire to Carlisle just 25 miles down the road he wouldn't have been. Yet you claim that your nation isn't defined by an arbitrary line drawn on a map. You can't have it both ways - either he isn't 'Scottish' in your view (e.g. because he has no scottish heritage) or he is (which is what you seem to imply) in which case that is based on a line on the map.
And more to the point, in your world of your 'Nation first' can you explain to me why on earth is my Dad somehow more important if he lives in Dumfries than if he lives in Carlisle. How can that possibly be justified - he is the same person.
-
Dear ProfDavey,
As a NO voter I have never thought for one minute that Scotland could not go it alone, it certainly has the resources oil being just one of them.
For me it was never a question of could we, it was and still remains should we and for the same reasons you have listed.
The SNP would have had to do some serious sums after the price of oil dropped but oil is just one of Scotland's many resources.
Gonnagle.
Scotland has weathered the drop in oil price because it has been cushioned from the fall by the rUK. Yes, Scotland could go it alone but at a considerable drop in quality of life and volatility in its economy - and that's assuming the problems of currency union (or not) could be wished away.
-
Dear ProfDavey,
As a NO voter I have never thought for one minute that Scotland could not go it alone, it certainly has the resources oil being just one of them.
For me it was never a question of could we, it was and still remains should we and for the same reasons you have listed.
The SNP would have had to do some serious sums after the price of oil dropped but oil is just one of Scotland's many resources.
Gonnagle.
Scotland has weathered the drop in oil price because it has been cushioned from the fall by the rUK. Yes, Scotland could go it alone but at a considerable drop in quality of life and volatility in its economy - and that's assuming the problems of currency union (or not) could be wished away.
That's exactly right.
There is a big risk if your economy is so dependent on a single sector. The Norwegians dealt with this issue decades ago by putting aside a fund from their oil to help deal with peaks and troughs in the volatile price fluctuations. But Scotland doesn't have this and it would take years (and also require the price to be high) to build up an appropriate fund.
No doubt AM will start ranting on at Westminster saying they should have done this too decades ago. But actually because the UK was so much larger as an economy than Norway with oil a much, much smaller proportion there wasn't really the need, or the point.
-
there are two ways generally to seen as a certain nationality
a) You are either born in a country
b) You are naturalised
In the case of your father Prof, he was born an Englishman by your example, but became a naturalised Scot based on 20 years residency.
Had he retired south of the border however, he would cease to be Scottish as he was Scottish by naturalisation. Had he been born in Scotland he would remain Scottish wherever he lived.
This rationale is not limited to use by 'nationalists' but as far as I can see in general use by governments around the world
-
there are two ways generally to seen as a certain nationality
a) You are either born in a country
b) You are naturalised
In the case of your father Prof, he was born an Englishman by your example, but became a naturalised Scot based on 20 years residency.
Had he retired south of the border however, he would cease to be Scottish as he was Scottish by naturalisation. Had he been born in Scotland he would remain Scottish wherever he lived.
This rationale is not limited to use by 'nationalists' but as far as I can see in general use by governments around the world
The differences is that nationalists see this as being a matter or principle - remember AM's I put my nation first mantra. Non nationalists see it as merely a matter of practicality. That's the big difference.
-
I'm not sure that nationalism is always nasty. For example, in a colonial situation, surely it's right that the subordinate nation struggles to be free. An obvious example - Ireland. However, Scotland is not a colony; and obviously, the national movement does not solve economic and social problems in itself, as in fact, Ireland discovered.
-
I'm not sure that nationalism is always nasty. For example, in a colonial situation, surely it's right that the subordinate nation struggles to be free. An obvious example - Ireland. However, Scotland is not a colony; and obviously, the national movement does not solve economic and social problems in itself, as in fact, Ireland discovered.
But you can struggle to be free of a dominating force (whether from outside, or just as likely a totalitarian regime internally) without resorting to nationalism.
Nationalism is all about dividing the world up - about us and them, those that fit and those that don't. That's why I cannot stand it. And there is the added problem that as soon as you create a new 'smaller nation' parts of that new nation will see themselves as not being part of it, not having their issues addressed etc, etc and so the divisions go on. Were Scotland to have become independent, how long would it be before people in Dumfries or in Shetland started grumbling about the elite in Edinburgh in exactly the same fashion as the Scots nats do now about Westminster. And of course both Dumfries and Shetland have a history that involves not being in Scotland! Indeed Shetland has spent considerably more of its history as part of the UK than it ever did as part of an independent Scotland, and not far off the same for Galloway.
-
Prof are you suggesting that the soviet block countries should have just stayed with Russia just so they don't upset someone, might be an extreme example but I'm sure they are in the main happier governing themselves.
Here's a list of countries and when they declared independence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation
As wiggs said not all wish for independence is nasty, Quebec from Canada is another, while not all the country wanted it I don't see why it was a bad thing TO want it or why you should be tagged as some sort of crazy right winger if you do.
You have to take it on a country by country basis and I know it's a popular misconception that if you support the SNP that somehow you hate the English or the UK but the ones I meet don't they just want a chance to govern Scotland themselves for several reasons........
The UK is made up of 4 different countries but governed in one who also decide WHO the government is (due to population size), it's hard to accept for some of us i'm afraid hence the urge for independence it's been that way far too long.
Another reason is because a lot of people all over the country think that the government is corrupt, lining their own pockets and London-centric perhaps you don't agree but many do.
That's only 2 off the top of my head and that's mainly why the SNP are doing well. I've met a few people who voted no and have regrets but I haven't met anyone who voted yes who would change their vote, those no voters got what they wanted in terms of staying in the UK but seem less that pleased that the momentum for independence didn't go away ;D
Classic careful what you wish for.. TORY/UKIP or Lab/SNP what a choice ;)
-
Another reason is because a lot of people all over the country think that the government is corrupt, lining their own pockets and London-centric perhaps you don't agree but many do.
And has it not occurred to you that were Scotland to gain independence that in no time at all a lot of people all over the (new) country would think that the government is corrupt, lining their own pockets and Edinburgh-centric (or certainly central-belt centric).
There is no magic wand which will miraculously ensure that the criticisms of the Westminster government won't simply be recreated for an independent Holyrood government.
Indeed this is already a feature of devolved government, certainly in Wales. There are plenty of people in Wales, particularly outside the South Eastern part who see the Welsh government as out of touch, detached and Cardiff-centric.
-
Scotland is NOT a new country.
-
Dear Prof,
Oh most definitely Edinbugger centric, already is, it is where the money goes to, Edinburgh needs no begging bowl.
But then the argument is should we beg from Holyrood or Westminster, one bunch of crooks versus another bunch of crooks.
Better to be robbed by my own than some foreigner.
Is it me who is small minded!!
Gonnagle
-
I'm with you Gonners better the devil you know...
At least we could vote them in or out rather than just have to accept whoever Southern England vote in (for themselves).
The problem with UK politics is that it's institutionalised and that's were the corruption comes from. Labour and the Tories (and those other ones) have to many old school boy networks and to many ties with business to be otherwise.
I think it would take a good few centuries for and Independent Scotland to get to that stage. Not only that but at least we would have a chance to try and get it right which unless there is a miracle will never happen in Westminster.
If nothing else the introduction of UKIP and the SNP at least give them a fright and something else to think about other than how many shares in fracking companies they can buy before they try and push it through (not in their backyard of course!).
I actually am not that bothered about the no vote as I still think at least we have the SNP fighting our corner (despite the media vilification which makes them stronger) there are no other Scottish based parties to vote for. :)
-
Scotland is NOT a new country.
It would be in terms of independence under international law.
Currently Scotland is not a sovereign state under international law - it is part of the sovereign state that is the UK - I thought you'd understand that, as you seem to be so keen on independence.
-
I think it would take a good few centuries for and Independent Scotland to get to that stage. Not only that but at least we would have a chance to try and get it right which unless there is a miracle will never happen in Westminster.
I thought it had been happening in Scotland for as long as Scotland's had democracy.
... there are no other Scottish based parties to vote for. :)
There was another one until recently. It was called 'Labour'. ;)
-
The trouble with Westminster is its full of Scots. :)
-
Well you should have a referendum if you don't like it Jakswan.
-
Dear Rabbac,
If nothing else the introduction of UKIP and the SNP at least give them a fright and something else to think about other than how many shares in fracking companies they can buy before they try and push it through (not in their backyard of course!).
A fright, I don't know if you Independence voters have notice but you have not only given them a fright you have also woken them up, brought them back to reality, this is a great victory for the SNP, people all over the United Kingdom are now sitting up and taking notice, even if it is just to say "bloody Scots".
It has been a steady decline for Westminster, first we had a coalition government, then we have UKIP rearing its ugly head ( oh and this is not just a English disease, many Scots if not voting for UKIP think similar thoughts ) and then the SNP giving them a nose bleed.
But the simple fact remains, we voted NO, Nicole Sturgeon should now get on and start thinking what is best for Scotland, all Scotland not just the Brave Hearts who voted for Independence.
Gonnagle.
-
Well you should have a referendum if you don't like it Jakswan.
The Scots already did, they said remain British.
-
A fright, I don't know if you Independence voters have notice but you have not only given them a fright you have also woken them up, brought them back to reality, this is a great victory for the SNP, people all over the United Kingdom are now sitting up and taking notice, even if it is just to say "bloody Scots".
A friend of mine suggested that perhaps the SNP and UKIP might go into coalition. When I asked why, he said that they both seem to want to withdraw their respective nations from Europe ;) I can understand where he was coming from.
It has been a steady decline for Westminster, first we had a coalition government, ...
Not sure how coalition government is a decline, Gonners. What's more, both Scotland and Wales beat Westminster to coalition government in recent years. The Scottish Parliament had a Labour/Lib Dem Coalition for its first 2 terms (1999-2007); the Welsh Assembly had a Labour/Lib Dem coalition for its first term (1999-2003) and a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition in its third term (2007-11)
... then we have UKIP rearing its ugly head ( oh and this is not just a English disease, many Scots if not voting for UKIP think similar thoughts ) and then the SNP giving them a nose bleed.
Currently UKIP only have a couple of MPs. The ugly head will only really have reared if they win these and others at the election.
But the simple fact remains, we voted NO, Nicole Sturgeon should now get on and start thinking what is best for Scotland, all Scotland not just the Brave Hearts who voted for Independence.
The problem that I see with NS (and hence with the SNP) is that she thinks that she can dictate to the rest of the UK, by trying to get into bed with one of the larger parties.
-
Well you should have a referendum if you don't like it Jakswan.
The Scots already did, they said remain British.
They also said, by implication, that they want to stay in Europe!!
-
Dear Hope,
The problem that I see with NS (and hence with the SNP) is that she thinks that she can dictate to the rest of the UK, by trying to get into bed with one of the larger parties.
Much as I would like to debate your whole post but I will stick to the above comment.
SNP, Nicole Sturgeon is not trying to get into bed with anyone, they don't have to, they don't need or want anyone else, they are a force to be recognised in this country, Labour at present are not worth writing about, maybe the Tories have picked up a few more voters but it is the other parties that want to sleep with SNP.
After the next general election if a politician in Scotland wants to blow his nose he will have to ask Nicole Sturgeon for a hankie first.
Gonnagle.
-
SNP, Nicole Sturgeon is not trying to get into bed with anyone, they don't have to, they don't need or want anyone else, they are a force to be recognised in this country, Labour at present are not worth writing about, maybe the Tories have picked up a few more voters but it is the other parties that want to sleep with SNP.
Such a force yet such a massive minority will vote for them. Lets no overplay it, there is zero chance of a coalition a good chance of a deal on a case by case basis which if that is the way the votes go would be fine imho.
-
SNP, Nicole Sturgeon is not trying to get into bed with anyone, they don't have to, they don't need or want anyone else, they are a force to be recognised in this country, ...
If that is the case, why is Sturgeon saying that Labour will only get into No 10 if they do a deal with the SNP, Gonners?
... but it is the other parties that want to sleep with SNP.
Quite agree, especially UKIP ;)
-
Interesting analysis of Nicola's speech in the light of the rise of SNP influence from a non-biased perspective here:
http://theconversation.com/why-nicola-sturgeons-london-speech-deserves-to-be-taken-seriously-38878?utm_content=buffera6bfb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
I was thinking that it could be so close at the GE, with greens, UKIP, LibDems having less seats than the SNP put together that the SNP could hold sway who ever walks through No.10.
-
The Scots already did, they said remain British.
Woosh..... obviously the humor went over your head :)
-
But the simple fact remains, we voted NO, Nicole Sturgeon should now get on and start thinking what is best for Scotland, all Scotland not just the Brave Hearts who voted for Independence.
The simple fact remains.. you voted no not me :)
I'm sure Nic will also consider you "not so Brave Hearts" when she is doing what's best for Scotland have no fear ;)
-
I can understand where he was coming from.
WHAT?? Common now hope even the most ardent unionist can see that the SNP are NOTHING like UKIP there is no chance of having a coalition with the loony party, thats absurd I'm afraid.
The problem that I see with NS (and hence with the SNP) is that she thinks that she can dictate to the rest of the UK, by trying to get into bed with one of the larger parties.
That's how politics work Hope? The SNP are in the main a left wing party so they are likely to work with Labour/Lib-dems to push some of their policies through for Scotland and help other parties to push through their own left wing policies that affect the UK.
Unlike the Lib-dems they have ruled out going right wing with the tories (or UKIP) hence why labour won't rule working with us. :)
-
Such a force yet such a massive minority will vote for them.
According to estimates reported by the BBC in January 2015 for party membership, Conservative 149,800 members, Labour Party 190,000, SNP 93,000, Libs 44,000 Greens 44,000, UKIP 42,000 so twice as big as 3 parties and their membership is ONLY in Scotland, not to bad for a massive minority ;)
It's fun to see the continued rise of the SNP is really annoying the no voters (north and south), their denials of things changed forever give me a laugh ;D
Not as amusing as a labour wipeout in the GE and the Scottish Elections will be though.
-
Dear Rabbac,
I'm sure Nic will also consider you "not so Brave Hearts" when she is doing what's best for Scotland have no fear ;)
fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Gonnagle.
-
Such a force yet such a massive minority will vote for them.
According to estimates reported by the BBC in January 2015 for party membership, Conservative 149,800 members, Labour Party 190,000, SNP 93,000, Libs 44,000 Greens 44,000, UKIP 42,000 so twice as big as 3 parties and their membership is ONLY in Scotland, not to bad for a massive minority ;)
It's fun to see the continued rise of the SNP is really annoying the no voters (north and south), their denials of things changed forever give me a laugh ;D
Not as amusing as a labour wipeout in the GE and the Scottish Elections will be though.
Confused about votes and members?
I think the SNP's rise is very exciting! Who is denying change?
-
I think the SNP's rise is very exciting! Who is denying change?
Super.. something we can agree on then :)
-
I agree that it's exciting. I'm just dreading the Tories again.
-
I'm dreading labour as well though.
-
I'm dreading the LibDems as well - full house!
-
Let's face it, whoever gains power, we are all you-know-what!
-
I'm dreading the LibDems as well - full house!
Nope, a full house is now seven ... or is it eight ... as per the debate that probably won't happen.
So anyone want to say they are dreading UKIP, SNP, Green, Plaid, DUP ...
I'll kick off - I'm dreading UKIP.
-
Dear Gonnagle,
Stop being so smug, yes I know they are all wankers but nobody likes a smart arse.
Wigs and Nearlysane for Prime Minister. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
That's probably what we need actually. Someone like Richard Branson. He'll do.
-
I'm dreading them all..
2 months of lies and no-one answering a straight bloody question!!!!!
Question Time should change it's name to Answer Time :)
The only people you get saying what they think are the guests who ARE'NT politicians!
-
I'm dreading them all..
2 months of lies and no-one answering a straight bloody question!!!!!
Question Time should change it's name to Answer Time :)
The only people you get saying what they think are the guests who ARE'NT politicians!
Arghh! This hurts, but I totally agree with that! :o
-
Why thanks BA I'm sure I've have agreed with you before... maybe.. possibly ;)
-
Why thanks BA I'm sure I've have agreed with you before... maybe.. possibly ;)
I'm happy to agree with you, KO. We did once before. It stuck in my mind because I was so surprised I accidentally knocked my computer over whilst in shock! :D :D
-
This is a very thought provoking essay by Irvine ('train spotting') Welsh.
A bit long, but well worth a read.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/04/08/engerland-swings-like-a-pendulum-do/
-
Dear Jim,
Sane posted the same link over on another thread, a bit long winded for me but on the question of immigration he gives it a paltry couple of line's.
Is immigration a problem? When UKIP mention it they are branded with terms like racist but Cameron is bringing in new measures to control it, should we be tougher on immigration, have the Tories and Labour been to soft on immigration.
Most politicians I have listened to cite historical reasons why immigration has been great for the UK but Peter Hitchen on Question Time pointed out that this time it is a problem due to the large numbers we are dealing with.
If I remember correctly Cameron was warned about these large numbers but chose to ignore the warnings.
Is immigration a problem and can we discuss it without accusations of racism or referring to yer wee granny third removed who came from foreign climes.
Gonnagle.
-
UKIP are not branded racist because they mention immigration, but rather because they talk about immigrants almost exclusively in terms of claiming benefits such as Farage's unsupported pish about HIV in the debate.
I find the idea that you can't talk about immigration without being branded a racist an attempt at poisoning the well. It is blatantly clear that people talk about immigration all the time without being called racist.
I think there are important questions about how immigration is handled but in general I think it is beneficial.
-
Dear Jim,
Sane posted the same link over on another thread, a bit long winded for me but on the question of immigration he gives it a paltry couple of line's.
Is immigration a problem? When UKIP mention it they are branded with terms like racist but Cameron is bringing in new measures to control it, should we be tougher on immigration, have the Tories and Labour been to soft on immigration.
Most politicians I have listened to cite historical reasons why immigration has been great for the UK but Peter Hitchen on Question Time pointed out that this time it is a problem due to the large numbers we are dealing with.
If I remember correctly Cameron was warned about these large numbers but chose to ignore the warnings.
Is immigration a problem and can we discuss it without accusations of racism or referring to yer wee granny third removed who came from foreign climes.
Gonnagle.
-
I can (sort of) understand the paranoia facing those whose world is upset when people of a different language, culture, ethnicity or even creed 'invade' their territory.
I understand their nervousness, without sharing it.
The problem with the influx of immigrants appears to me to be not the number, but the speed at which they might seem to be arriving - to some, at least.
Also, I think it depends on exactly where, on these islands, you live.
My town has many examples of surnames such as Favali, Ochypala, Berinski, Jonas - legacies of migrations in the twentieth century.
Our churches (RC and CofS) conducted a little investigation.
In our town of 6,000 or so, well over one third were of European, Asian or Chinese extraction.
We simply don't have an issue (unless they were born in Cumnock...;) )
Without the migrant workers in Scotland, the fruit, potato and prawn fisheries would simply vanish - the rural community simply could not function.
-
Is the appointment of Thatcher's adviser Andrew Dunlop as a Scottish Minister a step toward the break up of the union?
-
Is the appointment of Thatcher's adviser Andrew Dunlop as a Scottish Minister a step toward the break up of the union?
Whatever it is, it's went down like a lead balloon up here - and not only with SNP members.
I spoke with a councillor this afternoon - a Labour councillor at thst - whose opinion on the move was not printable.
-
Is the appointment of Thatcher's adviser Andrew Dunlop as a Scottish Minister a step toward the break up of the union?
Whatever it is, it's went down like a lead balloon up here - and not only with SNP members.
I spoke with a councillor this afternoon - a Labour councillor at thst - whose opinion on the move was not printable.
Well . . . he'd got to do something to annoy you hadn't he?
-
It's fairly obvious; they're not one of the big UK parties and they don't have much economic power - able, at present, to blame Westminster for any such issues.
-
And there is of course the fact that brave Dave Mundell might run away
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-affairs-committee-future-in-doubt-1-3775088
-
The ever excellent Peat Worrier
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/wanted-scottish-nationalism-with-head.html
-
Interesting and comprehensive (for a newspaper) read in today's Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/21/how-alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon-pulled-off-political-triumph-lifetime
-
It's fairly obvious; they're not one of the big UK parties and they don't have much economic power - able, at present, to blame Westminster for any such issues.
They might not be one of the big uk parties but they are the biggest in Scotland and the 3rd biggest party in terms of seats in the UK.
I think Dave the rave will try to give as many powers as possible to them in the hope that they fail big time and he comes to the rescue... although that could backfire if the SNP get it right :)
-
I think Dave the rave will try to give as many powers as possible to them in the hope that they fail big time and he comes to the rescue... although that could backfire if the SNP get it right :)
I think Cameron is trying to give the SNP what they want and if they get it right then this will stop any moves towards independence. I think there was massive support for Devo-Max amongst the Scottish electorate after all and they have just voted for a manifesto with full fiscal autonomy on it.
It does come across from some Scottish people that 'yeah we screwed Cameron' but with more powers on their way Cameron becomes irrelevant in Scotland.
I think its a great result all round, will make politicians more accountable, although SNP are able, currently at least, to deflect. When powers arrive they should be held to account for what they do in Scotland by the Scottish opposition and electorate.
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
Dam, one day the SNP will cease wittering on about process and get stuck into policy. To get rid of Scotland we'll have to vote no in the EU referendum. :)
-
It's fairly obvious; they're not one of the big UK parties and they don't have much economic power - able, at present, to blame Westminster for any such issues.
They might not be one of the big uk parties but they are the biggest in Scotland and the 3rd biggest party in terms of seats in the UK.
I think Dave the rave will try to give as many powers as possible to them in the hope that they fail big time and he comes to the rescue... although that could backfire if the SNP get it right :)
Big if!!!!!!!!
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
Dam, one day the SNP will cease wittering on about process and get stuck into policy. To get rid of Scotland we'll have to vote no in the EU referendum. :)
Go on, vote No to the EU and do Britain a favour.
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
Dam, one day the SNP will cease wittering on about process and get stuck into policy. To get rid of Scotland we'll have to vote no in the EU referendum. :)
Eh? How is putting in amendments and voting for FFA 'wittering in about process'???
Or are you just being silly?
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
Dam, one day the SNP will cease wittering on about process and get stuck into policy. To get rid of Scotland we'll have to vote no in the EU referendum. :)
Eh? How is putting in amendments and voting for FFA 'wittering in about process'???
Or are you just being silly?
I don't know they are Scotland's politicians, that is how they come across to me, they are not accountable to me so my view is irrelevant. I think the people of UK / Scotland would all benefit if Scotland left the union.
-
Well SNP amendment for FFA in Scotlahnd Bill fails. Tories voted against , Labour abstained (having said they were against it previously. It appears that Dennis Skinner voted for, and possibly Edward Leigh from the Tories.
Amendment to ensure that Westminster could not just get rid of Scottish Parliament also voted down, though this time Labour voted with SNP, so jakswan' s belief at Cameron was going to be giving the SNP what they want is not panning out.
Dam, one day the SNP will cease wittering on about process and get stuck into policy. To get rid of Scotland we'll have to vote no in the EU referendum. :)
Eh? How is putting in amendments and voting for FFA 'wittering in about process'???
Or are you just being silly?
I don't know they are Scotland's politicians, that is how they come across to me, they are not accountable to me so my view is irrelevant. I think the people of UK / Scotland would all benefit if Scotland left the union.
I think that the great irony of the SNP is that if they ever actually got (by one means or another) the kind of fiscal independence that they say they want - they would have to forget all their Left Wing stuff and become more Right Wing then the Tories in order to create a prosperous Scotland.
-
So today the youngest MP made their first speech
http://order-order.com/2015/07/14/mhairi-blacks-maiden-speech-in-full/
-
So today the youngest MP made their first speech
http://order-order.com/2015/07/14/mhairi-blacks-maiden-speech-in-full/
-
Yep. Mhairi was simply brilliant.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his vicious fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
-
Actually, I'm not comfortable with SNP's action here.
Not because I'm in favour of fox hunting - I most certainly am not.
However, whatever Westminster decides re: fox hunting in E&W can have no impact on Scotland, where Holyrood decides the matter without interferance from London.
I realise WHY SNP acted as they did...but I'm not comfortable with thier actions in this instance.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
Actually, I'm not comfortable with SNP's action here.
Not because I'm in favour of fox hunting - I most certainly am not.
However, whatever Westminster decides re: fox hunting in E&W can have no impact on Scotland, where Holyrood decides the matter without interferance from London.
I realise WHY SNP acted as they did...but I'm not comfortable with thier actions in this instance.
I found myself wondering whether perhaps the whole foxhunting debacle might just have been a ploy to coax the SNP into a position where there are seen to be interfering in English affairs.
It certainly strengthens the argument for EVEL - did Nicola fall into the trap? :)
-
Since in principle the SNP are not opposed to some form of EVEL, I don't see the gain, especially for a govt with a majority. What it has done is mean there will almost certainly be a tightening of the law in Scotland.
-
Since in principle the SNP are not opposed to some form of EVEL, I don't see the gain, especially for a govt with a majority. What it has done is mean there will almost certainly be a tightening of the law in Scotland.
Whatever their motivation, the actions of the SNP seem to have have strengthened the case for EVEL.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/foxhunting/11739331/David-Cameron-must-strengthen-Evel-plans-to-stop-SNP-maintaining-ban-on-hunting-in-England.html
-
And again talking about the 'case for EVEL' is simplistic, it is the question of what form of EVEL. I don't see that it has strengthened the case for any particular type of EVEL.
-
And again talking about the 'case for EVEL' is simplistic, it is the question of what form of EVEL. I don't see that it has strengthened the case for any particular type of EVEL.
I'd say that the fact that the SNP have declared that they are prepared to interfere in legislation that only affects England/Wales suddenly makes this an urgent matter.
-
More urgent than it was last week when it was being presented and then withdrawn? As already covered, the issue is what form of EVEL oil introduced. You might want to argue that it puts Cameron in a stronger position to say fuck off to any objections to any form of EVEL he wants to introduce but I given that he spent the entirety of the Scotland Bill telling them to fuck off, it does not seem to have been an issue before.
Further since already noted there is not a Base objection to some form of EVEL, I don't see what the gain is.
-
More urgent than it was last week when it was being presented and then withdrawn? As already covered, the issue is what form of EVEL oil introduced. You might want to argue that it puts Cameron in a stronger position to say fuck off to any objections to any form of EVEL he wants to introduce but I given that he spent the entirety of the Scotland Bill telling them to fuck off, it does not seem to have been an issue before.
Further since already noted there is not a Base objection to some form of EVEL, I don't see what the gain is.
There was an unwritten rule that the Scots did not interfere in legislation that did not affect them. That has now been swept aside and it's quite clear to everyone that the EVEL debate needs to move on PDQ.
I'd say that that probably strengthens Cameron's position.
-
The only ideal solution (short of breaking the union) is an English parliament...but that ain't gonna happen - the Tories will do a patch up job as per usual.
EVEL is the least worse option, LA - few Scots would dispute that.
However the method of delivering EVEL - through amending HOC standing orders, rather than stand alone legislation, which would require very serious (and prolonged) scrutiny, is one of the main issues.
What kind of EVEL will this amendment deliver?
THere's EVEL and there's EVEL.
Even some Tories think Cameron's playing with fire and jepordising the union.
-
The only ideal solution (short of breaking the union) is an English parliament...but that ain't gonna happen - the Tories will do a patch up job as per usual.
EVEL is the least worse option, LA - few Scots would dispute that.
However the method of delivering EVEL - through amending HOC standing orders, rather than stand alone legislation, which would require very serious (and prolonged) scrutiny, is one of the main issues.
What kind of EVEL will this amendment deliver?
THere's EVEL and there's EVEL.
Even some Tories think Cameron's playing with fire and jepordising the union.
My own view is that as there is very little support for an English parliament, so it's going to be some form of EVEL. My point is that the actions of the SNP put this question much nearer to the top of the agenda.
-
The wrangling then starts with whether the bill in question taken under the "English standing committee" has any consequentials for Scotland.
If there is any finance involved, it will have, and therefore excluding Scots (or Welsh) from the debate will cause ructions.
Since Cameron has already welshed on his promises to impliment hypocrite Brown's 'vow' made after the referendum, and the Westminster MPs have voted down amemdments to the Scotland Bill which would have meant that the Snith Commission report would have been enacted, the Barnet formula will remain - meaning that any changes in English laws affecting finance will affect Scotland.
That's the mess Cameron has created.
-
The wrangling then starts with whether the bill in question taken under the "English standing committee" has any consequentials for Scotland.
If there is any finance involved, it will have, and therefore excluding Scots (or Welsh) from the debate will cause ructions.
Since Cameron has already welshed on his promises to impliment hypocrite Brown's 'vow' made after the referendum, and the Westminster MPs have voted down amemdments to the Scotland Bill which would have meant that the Snith Commission report would have been enacted, the Barnet formula will remain - meaning that any changes in English laws affecting finance will affect Scotland.
That's the mess Cameron has created.
With the increased urgency of this issue, I suspect that these details might now get glossed-over.
-
The wrangling then starts with whether the bill in question taken under the "English standing committee" has any consequentials for Scotland.
If there is any finance involved, it will have, and therefore excluding Scots (or Welsh) from the debate will cause ructions.
Since Cameron has already welshed on his promises to impliment hypocrite Brown's 'vow' made after the referendum, and the Westminster MPs have voted down amemdments to the Scotland Bill which would have meant that the Snith Commission report would have been enacted, the Barnet formula will remain - meaning that any changes in English laws affecting finance will affect Scotland.
That's the mess Cameron has created.
Is it a mess that Cameron has created, or is a mess that the British electorate have created, consequent to the election result? I believe that Westminster MPs are allowed to vote down amendments even when they are tabled by the Government. After all, my MP has to take as much notice of how a particular Bill will effect his constituents as how it will effect the populace as a whole.
-
So, Hope:
If English MPs persist in voting down amendments to the Scotland Bill - amendments which were agreed by the Smith commission, we are entitlred to wreck any legislation proposed in Westminster which doesn't affect us?
Fairy 'nuff!
-
So, Hope:
If English MPs persist in voting down amendments to the Scotland Bill - amendments which were agreed by the Smith commission, we are entitlred to wreck any legislation proposed in Westminster which doesn't affect us?
Fairy 'nuff!
And if you start to 'wreck' English legislation, it's inevitable that EVEL will be implemented quicker and with minimal consideration of the interests of the Scots.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
Actually, I'm not comfortable with SNP's action here.
Not because I'm in favour of fox hunting - I most certainly am not.
However, whatever Westminster decides re: fox hunting in E&W can have no impact on Scotland, where Holyrood decides the matter without interferance from London.
I realise WHY SNP acted as they did...but I'm not comfortable with thier actions in this instance.
I found myself wondering whether perhaps the whole foxhunting debacle might just have been a ploy to coax the SNP into a position where there are seen to be interfering in English affairs.
It certainly strengthens the argument for EVEL - did Nicola fall into the trap? :)
I doubt it. Cameron was made to look foolish, and it surely upset his time-table. However, I wouldn't be surprised at any kind of devious trick by Cameron and his advisers.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
Actually, I'm not comfortable with SNP's action here.
Not because I'm in favour of fox hunting - I most certainly am not.
However, whatever Westminster decides re: fox hunting in E&W can have no impact on Scotland, where Holyrood decides the matter without interferance from London.
I realise WHY SNP acted as they did...but I'm not comfortable with thier actions in this instance.
I found myself wondering whether perhaps the whole foxhunting debacle might just have been a ploy to coax the SNP into a position where there are seen to be interfering in English affairs.
It certainly strengthens the argument for EVEL - did Nicola fall into the trap? :)
I doubt it. Cameron was made to look foolish, and it surely upset his time-table. However, I wouldn't be surprised at any kind of devious trick by Cameron and his advisers.
In the greater scheme of things - does it really matter? Sure, Cameron needed to make a gesture to a certain section of his party, but does Foxhunting have a major impact on the economy?
And the bonus is that there is now a really good reason to sort out those troublesome Scots and create an EVEL system that prevents anything like that happening again - because next time it might be something important.
-
Well, I applaud the SNP for putting a spanner in Cameron's works over his fox-hunting Amendment, even though it may not have been for altruistic reasons, and only defers the question.
Actually, I'm not comfortable with SNP's action here.
Not because I'm in favour of fox hunting - I most certainly am not.
However, whatever Westminster decides re: fox hunting in E&W can have no impact on Scotland, where Holyrood decides the matter without interferance from London.
I realise WHY SNP acted as they did...but I'm not comfortable with thier actions in this instance.
I found myself wondering whether perhaps the whole foxhunting debacle might just have been a ploy to coax the SNP into a position where there are seen to be interfering in English affairs.
It certainly strengthens the argument for EVEL - did Nicola fall into the trap? :)
I doubt it. Cameron was made to look foolish, and it surely upset his time-table. However, I wouldn't be surprised at any kind of devious trick by Cameron and his advisers.
In the greater scheme of things - does it really matter? Sure, Cameron needed to make a gesture to a certain section of his party, but does Foxhunting have a major impact on the economy?
And the bonus is that there is now a really good reason to sort out those troublesome Scots and create an EVEL system that prevents anything like that happening again - because next time it might be something important.
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
-
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
Let us be quite clear about this BA - nothing, but nothing suits that sweaty, pink and puffy thing that is Cameron's face.
-
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
Cameron might have the image of the upper class twit, but he's actually quite a canny operator. Possibly he is personally in favour of foxhunting, but he's not going to let that interfere with his main interest - POWER.
-
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
Cameron might have the image of the upper class twit, but he's actually quite a canny operator. Possibly he is personally in favour of foxhunting, but he's not going to let that interfere with his main interest - POWER.
I agree. Unfortunately, he is such a Thatcherite, it is frightening; and we are seeing those Thatcher policies coming to the fore now.
-
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
Cameron might have the image of the upper class twit, but he's actually quite a canny operator. Possibly he is personally in favour of foxhunting, but he's not going to let that interfere with his main interest - POWER.
I agree. Unfortunately, he is such a Thatcherite, it is frightening; and we are seeing those Thatcher policies coming to the fore now.
I just look on politicians as I would tradesmen. I don't worry too much about the background or interests of my plumber as long as he can do a competent job without ripping me off. I suspect that the much hated 'Thatcherite' policies are what is needed at the moment in order to move on from the mess that the last Labour government created.
-
So today the youngest MP made their first speech
http://order-order.com/2015/07/14/mhairi-blacks-maiden-speech-in-full/
-
Yep. Mhairi was simply brilliant.
-
....and here;s the "Wee Ginger Dug"s blog on Mhairi, BBC Bias,,,,and I'll just stand back and wait for it......
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/bbc-cringe-the-norma-desmond-of-broadcasters/
-
'Thatcherite' policies are what is needed at the moment in order to move on from the mess that the last Labour government created.
Mate, that was 5 years ago! How long do you think you Tories can milk that idea?
-
No, it doesn't particularly; but it is some sort of sacred right as far as the unctuous Tory's are concerned; and Cameron himself has been a keen hunter, all dressed up in pink, which happens to suit his complexion
Cameron might have the image of the upper class twit, but he's actually quite a canny operator. Possibly he is personally in favour of foxhunting, but he's not going to let that interfere with his main interest - POWER.
I agree. Unfortunately, he is such a Thatcherite, it is frightening; and we are seeing those Thatcher policies coming to the fore now.
I just look on politicians as I would tradesmen. I don't worry too much about the background or interests of my plumber as long as he can do a competent job without ripping me off. I suspect that the much hated 'Thatcherite' policies are what is needed at the moment in order to move on from the mess that the last Labour government created.
You mean like decimating the mining communities, and those businesses that relied on them for a living; and of course having denied she would do any such thing? Yep, just what we want, a caring, honest and up-front politician, in it with all of us!
-
You mean like decimating the mining communities, and those businesses that relied on them for a living; and of course having denied she would do any such thing? Yep, just what we want, a caring, honest and up-front politician, in it with all of us!
Are you seriously suggesting that the government should have perpetuated one of the most dangerous and unpleasant industries of recent times? There was no future for deep pit coal mining - especially with increasing awareness of the effects of greenhouse gases.
Sure Labour always use the language of compassion - but they can't do much with a buggered economy.
-
You mean like decimating the mining communities, and those businesses that relied on them for a living; and of course having denied she would do any such thing? Yep, just what we want, a caring, honest and up-front politician, in it with all of us!
The decimating of mining communities was Harold Wilson's role; he closed almost 2ce as many pits as Maggie. She simply completed the job.
-
'Thatcherite' policies are what is needed at the moment in order to move on from the mess that the last Labour government created.
Mate, that was 5 years ago! How long do you think you Tories can milk that idea?
Labour governments wrecking the economy seem to have been a recurring theme throughout my life. New Labour fooled us by promising to be sensible, but they got there in the end.
-
You mean like decimating the mining communities, and those businesses that relied on them for a living; and of course having denied she would do any such thing? Yep, just what we want, a caring, honest and up-front politician, in it with all of us!
Are you seriously suggesting that the government should have perpetuated one of the most dangerous and unpleasant industries of recent times? There was no any future for deep pit coal mining - especially with increasing awareness of the effects of greenhouse gases.
Sure Labour always use the language of compassion - but they can't do much with a buggered economy.
What ever the arguments about the mining industry, Thatcher, and Heseltine, lied about their intentions. 250, 000 men worked in the industry when Thatcher destroyed it: there are now just hundreds. From a local and practical point of view, there has been a tremendous personal cost. Arguably, the real Government failure was not the refusal to keep the industry afloat, but more could have been done to quickly promote economic regeneration and find new work for the miners who lose their jobs, and for those who relied on the industry.
-
What ever the arguments about the mining industry, Thatcher, and Heseltine, lied about their intentions. 250, 000 men worked in the industry when Thatcher destroyed it: there are now just hundreds. From a local and practical point of view, there has been a tremendous personal cost. Arguably, the real Government failure was not the refusal to keep the industry afloat, but more could have been done to quickly promote economic regeneration and find new work for the miners who lose their jobs, and for those who relied on the industry.
I agree, you can argue that more should have been done to help with regeneration but closing an huge obsolete industry like that was always going to be painful and doing it swiftly was probably the least bad option. I used to know a few miners and they were not altogether unhappy with getting paid-off.
-
Nind you, let's be charitable here.
The SNP have Thatcher to thank for butchering Scotland's industries, and Labour to thank i
for welshing on their promises to remain true to their roots.
This double whammy helped us be the force we are today.
-
Of course, another reason why we are thriving is because Westminster lies.
Not only that, the Eton Mess who is supposed to be in charge of the government which was defeated in a Commons viote over interference in Syria authorised - guess what - interference in syria.
So much for Westminster democracy.
-
Dearie Me,
Old Lapsed with the old argument, "it was Labour wot dunnit gov" no lapsed old chap, it was Labour and Tory wot dunnit.
I think the whole country should keep an eye on Scotland, Labour has not hit rock bottom yet in this country, I live in hope that English voters will also see through the sham that is the Tory party and realise that the old ways are dead.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie Me,
Old Lapsed with the old argument, "it was Labour wot dunnit gov" no lapsed old chap, it was Labour and Tory wot dunnit.
I think the whole country should keep an eye on Scotland, Labour has not hit rock bottom yet in this country, I live in hope that English voters will also see through the sham that is the Tory party and realise that the old ways are dead.
Gonnagle.
How long can the one party state function for before it implodes, I wonder?
-
Labour functioned as a virtual one party state in many Scottish local authorities for decade upon decade...till we got wise and voted in a reasonable electoral system - as opposed to the westminster mess.
The local office for the Scottish Labour party closed in my town last month....after being in place nearly five decades.
-
Dear Jim,
Aye I will say it again, the referendum woke up the good folk of Scotland, we are now all a little more politically savvy, and it did my wee Glaswegian heart the power of good to hear the weggie accent in the House of Commons.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
Aye I will say it again, the referendum woke up the good folk of Scotland, we are now all a little more politically savvy, and it did my wee Glaswegian heart the power of good to hear the weggie accent in the House of Commons.
Gonnagle.
-
Did you listen to Mhairi, Gonners?
If you did, I think you, like me, must have been struck by the content of her speech, and the sincerity with which she delivered it.
It was worthy of Margo MacDonald at her finest - and that's praise indeed.
The sight of the Deputy Speaker moaning because SNP members (and a few others as well) had the timerity to applaude rather than bleat like dyspeptic sheep, was also worth the listen!
-
Labour functioned as a virtual one party state in many Scottish local authorities for decade upon decade...till we got wise and voted in a reasonable electoral system - as opposed to the westminster mess.
The local office for the Scottish Labour party closed in my town last month....after being in place nearly five decades.
It occurs to me that a one party state can only function if either:
A/ They employ extremely repressive measures.
or
B/ They can unite their people with an external threat.
Whilst I suspect that Nicola might have fantasies of creating a Scottish STASI, more realistically she is making the most of riding the anti-Westminster wave.
How long can she maintain this for?
-
Dear Jim,
Aye I will say it again, the referendum woke up the good folk of Scotland, we are now all a little more politically savvy, and it did my wee Glaswegian heart the power of good to hear the weggie accent in the House of Commons.
Gonnagle.
-
Did you listen to Mhairi, Gonners?
If you did, I think you, like me, must have been struck by the content of her speech, and the sincerity with which she delivered it.
It was worthy of Margo MacDonald at her finest - and that's praise indeed.
The sight of the Deputy Speaker moaning because SNP members (and a few others as well) had the timerity to applaude rather than bleat like dyspeptic sheep, was also worth the listen!
Yes, a good speech, but it remains to be seen whether she can cut the muster as an MP, with all it entails, and with her lack of experience.
-
SNP: Why are they thriving?
Maybe this will partly answer the question.
From Labour's continuing disaster comes a new low tonight.
"Wings" gets it right.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-end-of-irony/
shame doesn't come close.
-
SNP: Why are they thriving?
Maybe this will partly answer the question.
From Labour's continuing disaster comes a new low tonight.
"Wings" gets it right.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-end-of-irony/
shame doesn't come close.
To me, it indicates that Labour are slowly realising that they no longer live in the 1970's.
Scotland still cherishes that delusion.
-
SNP: Why are they thriving?
Maybe this will partly answer the question.
From Labour's continuing disaster comes a new low tonight.
"Wings" gets it right.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-end-of-irony/
shame doesn't come close.
To me, it indicates that Labour are slowly realising that they no longer live in the 1970's.
Scotland still cherishes that delusion.
-
No.
Scotland has seen through Labour/New Labour/i-can't-believe-it's-not-Labour for the charlatans they are.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Still living in the 1970's, that brought a smile to my face, well I don't if you are right but if so we have suddenly went all 21st century, we have stuck two fingers up at the Victorian Tory way of thinking and lifted our kilts ( metaphorically speaking ) to Labours head in the sand politics.
You can combine compassion with politics.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Still living in the 1970's, that brought a smile to my face, well I don't if you are right but if so we have suddenly went all 21st century, we have stuck two fingers up at the Victorian Tory way of thinking and lifted our kilts ( metaphorically speaking ) to Labours head in the sand politics.
You can combine compassion with politics.
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle, :)
compassion without competence is less than useless. I feel that is the critical point that many are missing.
It doesn't matter how much you care or what kind of language you use - if the economy isn't thriving, then you have no money to carry out your plans. I think that there is always a certain dis-honesty in the Scottish Nationalist position because they can promise unrealistic spending plans to their electorate then blame the evil English for not forking out the cash.
Independence would at least have brought Scottish politicians down to Earth.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Competence, The Tories, competent for who!!
Even the most politically uneducated ( like myself ) can understand and agree with what the Tories are trying to do, don't spend what you don't have, they are trying to balance the books, it is the way they are going about it.
To be competent about something you at least need to have basic knowledge.
One of the Tories big issues is unemployment, ever visited a Job centre over the past year, soul destroying.
Staff so disenchanted that they just go through the motions, although I did witness a bit of excitement, the government introduced electronic signing on, whoopee!! it was nice to see them nearly smiling.
The governments internet job site, Universal job match, run by private contractors, a joke, no actually you can laugh at a joke, travesty is the word I was looking for, google it to find out what a absolute mess it is, even the company who runs it wants out.
The Tories like to privatise stuff, privatise Job centres, ask most job seekers they will tell you that using private employment agencies is far superior.
There are lots of ways of gaining employment, sadly Government run Job centres are not one of them, but it would be nice if the job centres informed citizens of the different agencies available to help and who also offer training/education to further your job prospect.
The Tories are so out of touch with reality, I sometimes wonder if they think poor people are something that we just need to get used to.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't pretend to understand what goes on in Scotland Gonnagle, but generally unemployment is at a low level in the rest of the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32719779
Last year my grand daughter was able to move from a zero-hours contract in a fast-food outlet to a good full time job at a reasonable rate in a mobile phone store. There seem to be plenty of jobs around for those who can be bothered to work.
I get the feeling that you have been weaned on Socialist propaganda and this might make it difficult to see these things.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Socialist propaganda, I voted in Thatcher, I hate Unions, my last post is simple facts, the Tories are just loud noise, smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Socialist propaganda, I voted in Thatcher, I hate Unions, my last post is simple facts, the Tories are just loud noise, smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
Perhaps you've just been living in Scotland too long then - the weather can have that effect ::)
-
Independence would at least have brought Scottish politicians down to Earth.
Independence would have given the Scottish parliament the opportunity to take Scotland in a direction that suited it, rather than being bound to a direction that suits the UK as a whole at their expense.
Unfortunately, no-one was actually offering them a vote on independence, they were being offered the opportunity to be an insignificant portion of the financially struggling Eurozone or to remain as a marginally less insignificant portion of the financially more robust (though not so much for their direct benefit) UK.
Neither was particularly attractive options, but that suited the SNP - they were either forced into a bad situation they could blame on someone else by the English/Tory government, or they were forced to remain in the bad situation by the unpatriotic 'No' voters.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
unpatriotic 'No' voters.
Yep!! that will be me you are talking about, I will hand my kilt into the next charity shop I pass ( hell!! I never wear the English invention anyway ).
BTW, welcome back ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
unpatriotic 'No' voters.
Yep!! that will be me you are talking about, I will hand my kilt into the next charity shop I pass ( hell!! I never wear the English invention anyway ).
BTW, welcome back ;)
Gonnagle.
Gonners - that was the 'SNP voice' not mine - as a half-Scot, I would have voted against that travesty of an offer of 'independence' if I'd been allowed, but I live about 400 miles too far south of Edinburgh to be eligible :)
O.
-
Only half a scot? Shame.
The simple reasons for why the SNP are thriving are.
Labour have no credible candidates, no credible alternative policies (just tory-lite ones) and a track record of using Scotland for a guaranteed 50 seats in London while treating the place like a branch office.
The SNP have lots of 'normal' people who weren't even politicians a couple of years ago so people can relate to them and they don't take Westminster seats or Scotland for granted.
Regardless of constant mainstream media anti-SNP propaganda most people I talk to of which about half voted NO seem happy with them in government because they at least can be trusted to argue Scotland's case in Westminster without a London alternative agenda.
Who else can Scotland vote for? With the muppets Labour have put up for the UK and Scottish party leadership elections I think the SNP have many years in power to come. Are they perfect.. no but then I've never seem a political party who was. :)
-
...most people I talk to of which about half voted NO seem happy with them in government because they at least can be trusted to argue Scotland's case in Westminster without a London alternative agenda.
Is this necessarily a good argument, Jim? Surely, London's agenda ought to be a UK-centric agenda, rather than the somewhat parochial one that the SNP will only ever be able to have.
Note, I'm not suggesting that the last few administrations have had a particularly strong 'UK-centric' agenda, but nor have they had specifically 'London/South-East-centric' ones either (after all, one of the two of the banks that the UK public have bailed out is Scottish. The other is based in London).
-
...most people I talk to of which about half voted NO seem happy with them in government because they at least can be trusted to argue Scotland's case in Westminster without a London alternative agenda.
Is this necessarily a good argument, Jim? Surely, London's agenda ought to be a UK-centric agenda, rather than the somewhat parochial one that the SNP will only ever be able to have.
Note, I'm not suggesting that the last few administrations have had a particularly strong 'UK-centric' agenda, but nor have they had specifically 'London/South-East-centric' ones either (after all, one of the two of the banks that the UK public have bailed out is Scottish. The other is based in London).
Where a bank is based is essentially irrelevant - quite a lot of the money bailing RBS out was American.
-
Only half a scot? Shame.
The simple reasons for why the SNP are thriving are.
Labour have no credible candidates, no credible alternative policies (just tory-lite ones) and a track record of using Scotland for a guaranteed 50 seats in London while treating the place like a branch office.
The SNP have lots of 'normal' people who weren't even politicians a couple of years ago so people can relate to them and they don't take Westminster seats or Scotland for granted.
Regardless of constant mainstream media anti-SNP propaganda most people I talk to of which about half voted NO seem happy with them in government because they at least can be trusted to argue Scotland's case in Westminster without a London alternative agenda.
Who else can Scotland vote for? With the muppets Labour have put up for the UK and Scottish party leadership elections I think the SNP have many years in power to come. Are they perfect.. no but then I've never seem a political party who was. :)
-
Wot KO said.
Incidentally, I heard Tom harris - a Scots Labour Branch Office ex-MP comparing the two pathetic candidates fior Scottish Labour branch office leader as "Two bald men arguing over a comb."
That's about right.
-
Only half a scot? Shame.
The simple reasons for why the SNP are thriving are.
Labour have no credible candidates, no credible alternative policies (just tory-lite ones) and a track record of using Scotland for a guaranteed 50 seats in London while treating the place like a branch office.
The SNP have lots of 'normal' people who weren't even politicians a couple of years ago so people can relate to them and they don't take Westminster seats or Scotland for granted.
Regardless of constant mainstream media anti-SNP propaganda most people I talk to of which about half voted NO seem happy with them in government because they at least can be trusted to argue Scotland's case in Westminster without a London alternative agenda.
Who else can Scotland vote for? With the muppets Labour have put up for the UK and Scottish party leadership elections I think the SNP have many years in power to come. Are they perfect.. no but then I've never seem a political party who was. :)
-
Wot KO said.
Incidentally, I heard Tom harris - a Scots Labour Branch Office ex-MP comparing the two pathetic candidates fior Scottish Labour branch office leader as "Two bald men arguing over a comb."
That's about right.
Kezia is a man?
-
According to the aforesaid ex-Labour MP, yes.
'Deputy Dug' is a man.
Whatever she is, if she's elected, it will be a lootery win for anyone opposing Labour.
Let's face it, even her dad thinks she's shall we say, mince*?
* - Scots colloquialism for - rubbish.
-
To be fair, to Kezia I don't think Jeff thinks she is rubbish. I think he disagrees with her and occasionally criticises her, in particular over the Carmichael affair. On current polls whoever wins will have to do some clever positioning to avoid being kicked out next year.
-
Gaun' yersel, lass!
Mhairi talks more sense - this time dismissing the anachronistic , time honoured trash that is Westminster....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33664317Nae wonder she's more popular than most of the dyed in the wool lobby fodder!
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
Lots of lies in there, only slightly hides the hatred fueled by the chip on the shoulder in turn fueled by an inferiority complex that some Scots can't seem to get over.
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
Lots of lies in there, only slightly hides the hatred fueled by the chip on the shoulder in turn fueled by an inferiority complex that some Scots can't seem to get over.
-
Can I suggest you check Paul Kavanagh's background before posting?
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
Lots of lies in there, only slightly hides the hatred fueled by the chip on the shoulder in turn fueled by an inferiority complex that some Scots can't seem to get over.
Can I suggest you check Paul Kavanagh's background before posting?
Why will it wash away lies?
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
Lots of lies in there, only slightly hides the hatred fueled by the chip on the shoulder in turn fueled by an inferiority complex that some Scots can't seem to get over.
Can I suggest you check Paul Kavanagh's background before posting?
Why will it wash away lies?
-
Which lies?
-
Brilliant commentary from the Wee Ginger Dug, on one year of broken promises from a corrupt Westminster.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/independence-of-mind/
Lots of lies in there, only slightly hides the hatred fueled by the chip on the shoulder in turn fueled by an inferiority complex that some Scots can't seem to get over.
Can I suggest you check Paul Kavanagh's background before posting?
Why will it wash away lies?
Which lies?
Amongst the drivel 'the Unionists remain angry and bitter' do they? What all of them, if anyone sounds bitter its Sturgeon and her party, whine whine whine.
How about 'They won the referendum last year on the back of a big lie' what lie?
-
Apparently, the members of the party once known as 'New Labour' have been given the Basil Fawlty treatment - "Don't mention the war".
Substitute "Scotland" for "The war", and you'll get the gist.
The Herald reports that, in a brilliant strategy move, Labour MP's (actually, there's only one of them....) are supposed to talk about individual towns and cities instead...
Apparently this is supposed to start the fight back for the 'people's party' in North Britain.
Here's the Wee Ginger Dug's take on the farce.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/
-
I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.
-
Oh Jak, wake up boy Labour aren't an alternative to anything (not even the tories!) they are a shambles.
Dugdale and her crew are just pumping out the same dribble as Murphy and co with the classic "we wont just slag off the SNP anymore that gets us nowhere"... oh hold on yes we will because we have nothing else did they not learn from that strategy which got them humped the last time!!
Policies? No we don't have policies but we are against austerity although we voted for it with the tories (and will do again) and we are are against trident but it will never become our policy and we don't like to talk about it :)
The SNP don't even have to try any more Labour are an embarrassment north and south.
Keep going though Jaky your attempts at slagging off the SNP and talking up labour are pure comedy gold!! ::)
-
I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.
Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?
-
Oh Jak, wake up boy Labour aren't an alternative to anything (not even the tories!) they are a shambles.
Dugdale and her crew are just pumping out the same dribble as Murphy and co with the classic "we wont just slag off the SNP anymore that gets us nowhere"... oh hold on yes we will because we have nothing else did they not learn from that strategy which got them humped the last time!!
Policies? No we don't have policies but we are against austerity although we voted for it with the tories (and will do again) and we are are against trident but it will never become our policy and we don't like to talk about it :)
The SNP don't even have to try any more Labour are an embarrassment north and south.
Keep going though Jaky your attempts at slagging off the SNP and talking up labour are pure comedy gold!! ::)
I know you like to rant but suggest you engage with what I said rather than what you think I said. I do not support Labour I'm LibDem.
-
I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.
Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?
You would think so but the Nationalists seem to blinded by rabid fanaticism.
-
I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.
Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?
The problem there, Hope, is that Slab have veen churning out their major policy statement "SMP bad, SNP bad, SNP, bad, " for yonks now - with disasterous results.
Dugdale and the minnows have yet to bring anything to the fore which gels with Scots enough to trust them in any way, shape or form.
-
I think you need at least give some idea of how you would do better. Proving lies in politics is quite hard., showing bad performance is easier. As KO has covered part of the issue with SLAB is that it has effectively cried wolf too much - as in the case when it complained about an SNP budget not covering enough about apprenticeships, and when the budget was adjusted to take into account the Labour proposal voting against the proposal.
This was due to the Bain Principle named after the ex MP Willie Bain that Labour in Scotland should have nothing to do with any SNP proposal even if they agreed with it.
-
Proving lies in politics is quite hard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32641174
Sturgeon's anti-austerity message for Westminster...
Is a lie, the SNP support austerity long. Also recall something about 'once in a generation'.
Don't get me wrong I think the SNP are a fantastic political party, masters of spin, using the independence of Scotland as a political football to great effect and have some great speakers. However they are Premier League their opposition in Scotland isn't able to compete.
-
You see the problem with this being a lie is that austerity is not a set of facts and it can be argued that austerity long, as you state it, is not austerity. This is why it is better to stick to showing bad performance which can be factual.
-
And on the once in a lifetime, the problem with that being a lie is you would have to prove the possibility of a further referendum was intended at the time of that statement. I don't think that is clear at al and things changed when 80,000 joined the SNP following the referendum and then they had 56 MPS elected. There was a time when it was said by Tory politicians that a simple majority of SNP MPs was a de facto declaration of independence. I don't think they lied, rather that circumstances had changed.
It's rather like I don't think Nick Clegg lied when he made his pledge about tuition fees, just made a foolish statement. I think the once in a lifetime was much less foolish since the change in circumstances was such that it would be foolish not to change. The tuition fees was a mistake about being in power
-
And on the once in a lifetime, the problem with that being a lie is you would have to prove the possibility of a further referendum was intended at the time of that statement. I don't think that is clear at al and things changed when 80,000 joined the SNP following the referendum and then they had 56 MPS elected. There was a time when it was said by Tory politicians that a simple majority of SNP MPs was a de facto declaration of independence. I don't think they lied, rather that circumstances had changed.
It's rather like I don't think Nick Clegg lied when he made his pledge about tuition fees, just made a foolish statement. I think the once in a lifetime was much less foolish since the change in circumstances was such that it would be foolish not to change. The tuition fees was a mistake about being in power
But there is a big difference between the Clegg 'tuition fee' statement and the SNP 'once in a lifetime' statement. The LibDems were never in a position to deliver on their statement as they were junior partners in a government where the senior partner was committed to raising tuition fees. That isn't the case with the SNP - whether or not to call for a further referendum is entirely within the control of the SNP - so they can freely live up to their 'once in a lifetime' statement should they choose to - let's face it, no-one else is going to force them to go back on that statement, are they.
So they aren't equivalent. My view being that the LibDem statement was naive, perhaps foolish and not deliverable given that the LibDems if in government were always going to be a junior partner. The SNP 'once in a lifetime' statement was much more cynical and disingenuous - an attempt to scare the electorate into voting 'yes' on the basis that there would never be another chance. Yet they darned well know that provided they were in government in Scotland (and lets face it there aren't many alternatives lining up at the door) they could call a referendum whenever they want, however often they want until they get the 'right' result.
-
How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?
-
I should, of course, note here that what is being discussed is the best way to fight against the SNP. I think, as already stated, that going down the lie route a difficult one, and given the current court case with Alistair Carmicheal's admitted lie, certainly not one for the Lib Dems.
This is neither saying that no one in the SNP has lied nor that there is not stuff they can be attacked on, just that the attack is better focussed on areas where the Scottish Govt can be argued as failing such as education, policing, and slightly less clearly the NHS.
-
How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?
Given that the SNP have been in control of Holyrood since 2007 and in overall majority since 2011 it isn't an unreasonable expectation for the SNP to consider that they will have regular opportunities to call referendums in Scotland that are under the control of the Scottish parliament.
Given that, at the time if Cleggs comment the LibDems had never been in power in the UK the Liberals not for about a century and even now neither has come close to being the largest of majority party, it isn't unreasonable to consider that the LIbDems wouldn't have the chance to implement their policy even if in government as a junior partner.
That's the difference.
And actually there was absolutely nothing to stop the SNP calling a referendum again for this autumn or even now to do so for next spring. The notion that there was no way another referendum could happen for a lifetime was clearly nonsense given that they were in complete control to call one a year or 18 months later.
-
Mmm so you do think the Labour Party in Scotland was stupid and lying, I take it then. Generally being in govt for a long period would lead to doubts about maintaining it but why not just ignore that. As to introducing a referendum before next year's election, do you have any justification that there was any likelihood of that or are you just muddying the water?
-
You see the problem with this being a lie is that austerity is not a set of facts and it can be argued that austerity long, as you state it, is not austerity. This is why it is better to stick to showing bad performance which can be factual.
Austerity is an economic plan to cut spending levels to balance government budgets. All major political parties proposed to cut government spending relative to GDP, including the SNP.
Corbyn by the sounds of it is truly anti-austerity as he will increase taxes to reduce the deficit.
-
That would be why the Shadow Chancellor committed to following the overall spending plans of George Osborne? Austerity is essentially a poliically and rather loosely defined term which by opposing certain things such as the tax credit cuts politicians can portray themselves as anti the proposed austerity.
As I said, I find this concentration on things that are not facts very strange when there are real issues with the SNP in Scotland in govt.
-
How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?
Given that the SNP have been in control of Holyrood since 2007 and in overall majority since 2011 it isn't an unreasonable expectation for the SNP to consider that they will have regular opportunities to call referendums in Scotland that are under the control of the Scottish parliament.
Given that, at the time if Cleggs comment the LibDems had never been in power in the UK the Liberals not for about a century and even now neither has come close to being the largest of majority party, it isn't unreasonable to consider that the LIbDems wouldn't have the chance to implement their policy even if in government as a junior partner.
That's the difference.
And actually there was absolutely nothing to stop the SNP calling a referendum again for this autumn or even now to do so for next spring. The notion that there was no way another referendum could happen for a lifetime was clearly nonsense given that they were in complete control to call one a year or 18 months later.
If independence is off the agenda then the appeal of the SNP would be damaged. Vote to leave the EU and dump Scotland out of the Union I say! :)
-
That seems a bit confused, are you saying if Scotland is independent then the SNP are unlikely to be the Govt? If so then certainly in the second election after independence I think that is certainly true but so what?
-
That seems a bit confused, are you saying if Scotland is independent then the SNP are unlikely to be the Govt? If so then certainly in the second election after independence I think that is certainly true but so what?
No I'm saying that now the SNP have to keep independence on the Agenda, the neverendum. I think the neverendum is going to be toxic for the UK and possibly give rise to English nationalism, it won't make the NHS better, improve education or employment.
A vote the leave the European Union could easily result another vote for Scotland to leave British Union and settle the matter once and for all.
-
No I'm saying that now the SNP have to keep independence on the Agenda, the neverendum. I think the neverendum is going to be toxic for the UK and possibly give rise to English nationalism, it won't make the NHS better, improve education or employment.
A vote the leave the European Union could easily result another vote for Scotland to leave British Union and settle the matter once and for all.
I think you are mistaken here - the refernedum was not on the agenda in 2007 and had there not been the increase in SNP memebership by 400% and the 56 MPs elected, and were there not a real chance of a vote out in the EU ref - i.e. if after the referndum nothing changed, it wouldn't be even a possibility for the elections next year. The voters are what really determines if there will be another referendum
As to the referendum itself, of course it won't make education better - and I've never met anyone who has said it will (Are you channelling Vlad?). The people that believe in independence, for the many different reasons they might do so, believe that independence will make a difference though. The point is that much of the talk of referndums comes from the unionist parties, and I think it is counter productive. There is real damage to be done to the SNP, if they went after thme for bad decisions, rather than this approach of the bad decisions are all because they are distracted by the referendum. I think it would play much better if they were to say in the current set up we will impriove it by doing x, y and z, and instead of stoking up discussion of possible referendum, ignore it as irrelevant to current issues. They should approach it as if the SNP are just not very good rather than carrying out some Machiavellian plan as it gives an air of efficiency to the SNP that they don't deserve. Or rather it highlights that teh SNp appear efficent as against the position of just saying SNP bad.
Labour in Scotland should forget about voters coming home as it just continues the sense of entitlement that has been a substantial and ongoing part of their loss of support and just present policies. I agree with you that the possible move to a free vote on independence would be sensible but it needs to be done in such a way that downplays the significance of the decision.
-
There is an to to a significant issue with the going after the SNP on the idea of lying which is that it merely becomes an argument that they are as 'bad as us'. That is not currently a vote winner since most voters have not drunk the Kool Aid but rather think that the SNP might be vaguely more efficient and also not Tories.
The more effective approach to win voters is on the idea that the SNP are just not very good at govt. There is the possibility that were the Tories to play this right they could come second in the elections. Again they should stop the referendum stuff, build on Osborne's speech yesterday and get the partial devolution of income tax in, with a clear statement of what they would do in Scotland with that power.
-
I think you are mistaken here - the refernedum was not on the agenda in 2007 and had there not been the increase in SNP memebership by 400% and the 56 MPs elected, and were there not a real chance of a vote out in the EU ref - i.e. if after the referndum nothing changed, it wouldn't be even a possibility for the elections next year. The voters are what really determines if there will be another referendum
I've heard Nationalist politicians talk about other issues, this is from the telegraph.
"Alex Salmond has suggested the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons, failure to devolve more powers and “austerity to the max” are other possible triggers."
As to the referendum itself, of course it won't make education better - and I've never met anyone who has said it will (Are you channelling Vlad?).
I never claimed anyone said it will either.
The people that believe in independence, for the many different reasons they might do so, believe that independence will make a difference though. The point is that much of the talk of referndums comes from the unionist parties, and I think it is counter productive. There is real damage to be done to the SNP, if they went after thme for bad decisions, rather than this approach of the bad decisions are all because they are distracted by the referendum. I think it would play much better if they were to say in the current set up we will impriove it by doing x, y and z, and instead of stoking up discussion of possible referendum, ignore it as irrelevant to current issues. They should approach it as if the SNP are just not very good rather than carrying out some Machiavellian plan as it gives an air of efficiency to the SNP that they don't deserve. Or rather it highlights that teh SNp appear efficent as against the position of just saying SNP bad.
Labour in Scotland should forget about voters coming home as it just continues the sense of entitlement that has been a substantial and ongoing part of their loss of support and just present policies. I agree with you that the possible move to a free vote on independence would be sensible but it needs to be done in such a way that downplays the significance of the decision.
As far as I can tell Labour have done exactly that, their position is changing.
I hope it works out for Labour, we have the Tories to represent the rich, the SNP to represent the Scots, the rest of us have politicians which simply don't seem to be very good.
-
All this talk of a soon to be 2nd referendum comes mainly from the SNP's opponents to stir up what they hope is some kind of 'unionist' vote.
Not many people I know who voted yes realistically think that there will be one anytime soon unless like Nicky baby says there is a massive call for it, what would be the point unless this time they are going to definitely going to win, it would be suicide!
Given what the nasty party are up to though it might happen at some time especially if England keep voting them in!! 10 years of Cameron/Osborne half of England might want independence!
Labour aren't going to make any comebacks up here anytime soon Corbin or not simply because they have second rate Scottish politicians, still seen as Westminster led despite the claims to the contrary and most importantly we actually do have an alternative to Lab/Con! (i won't even mention the libdems!) :)
-
10 years of Cameron/Osborne half of England might want independence!
I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.
-
I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.
;D
Hopefully before Tory jackboots get to be part of our national dress (for standing on the poor of course)!
Guess your ahead of the curve on that one Jak ::)
-
I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.
;D
Hopefully before Tory jackboots get to be part of our national dress (for standing on the poor of course)!
Guess your ahead of the curve on that one Jak ::)
Yes the SNP where a great help to the Tories, that is why an EU no vote is essential, help Scotland on her way. :)
-
Are you in favour of staying in the EU? I can't be bothered checking all your posts also I can't remember if we are better together or not ;)
I noticed one of your posts saying that the SNP would give 'rise' to English Nationalism, I would be amused if I thought you were serious!
English Nationalism has always been there, they used to in a minority... I can only hope they still are since we are still joined at the hip. I guess with the EU referendum we will find out ::)
-
Are you in favour of staying in the EU? I can't be bothered checking all your posts also I can't remember if we are better together or not ;)
Out, its a sure fire way to shut the toxic SNP up. Mind have to credit Tories for saying they will give tax raising powers to Scotland early, puts them on the spot! I doubt the Tories will push too hard though after all the SNP have put a good few nails in Labour's coffin.
How about you I'm assuming you would agree with an out vote? Your argument would maybe run something like this:-
I think we are better out at least we could vote politicans in or out rather than just have to accept whoever mainland Europe vote in (for themselves).
The problem with EU politics is that it's institutionalised and that's were the corruption comes from. Germany and France (and those other ones) have to many old school boy networks and to many ties with business to be otherwise.
I think it would take a good few centuries for and Independent UK to get to that stage. Not only that but at least we would have a chance to try and get it right which unless there is a miracle will never happen in Brussels.
-
Toxic SNP.. really Jak, obsessed much?? ::)
I would have thought a 'better together' boy would be voting in, Farage get to you did he?
I would assume your argument would be along the lines of long live little england, let's get rid of johnny foreigner (aka anyone not white or a funny accent), immigration immigration, stealing our women folk and jobs, terrorists everywhere, muslims, long live Boris and the Daily Mail? (see I can make up stuff too)
Anyway my camalite friend lets try not to make assumptions about what each other thinks that way we might be able to have a sensible debate about a topic I can see your still bitter about (you won you know?) so until you can get over that then we really won't get anywhere.
Of course your 'guess' is wrong I'm happy to be part of Europe although I would have preferred to be part of it as an independent country I just have to bite the bullet and hope your compatriots aren't going to give into right wing Nationalism although admittedly that would be the quickest way to get another referendum and make your wish come true ::)
-
Toxic SNP.. really Jak, obsessed much?? ::)
I would have thought a 'better together' boy would be voting in, Farage get to you did he?
Eh? I think its best for all that Scotland leave as soon as possible, or at least the issue gets settled.
I would assume your argument would be along the lines of long live little england, let's get rid of johnny foreigner (aka anyone not white or a funny accent), immigration immigration, stealing our women folk and jobs, terrorists everywhere, muslims, long live Boris and the Daily Mail? (see I can make up stuff too)
Well since I'm not English no nothing like that at all. I wasn't making anything up I took a post you wrote with regard to Scottish independence and changed a few words.
The SNP are toxic in Wales.
Anyway my camalite friend lets try not to make assumptions about what each other thinks that way we might be able to have a sensible debate about a topic I can see your still bitter about (you won you know?) so until you can get over that then we really won't get anywhere.
You are being a hypocrite.
Of course your 'guess' is wrong I'm happy to be part of Europe although I would have preferred to be part of it as an independent country I just have to bite the bullet and hope your compatriots aren't going to give into right wing Nationalism although admittedly that would be the quickest way to get another referendum and make your wish come true ::)
Actually I'd guess you were for the European Union but against the Union.
Whilst Scotland haven't got a great football team they could make the Euro's of the whinging and moaning Championships. :)
-
Hmm hypocrite? Really? You are the one who put up what I was thinking so I took a tounge in cheek swipe at what you think, hardly hypocritical ::)
As for trying to get a bit of debate going like I say I am repeatedly reading your posts which obsessively prattle on about the SNP no matter what the subject so again, obsessed much!!
I guess your Welsh then pity you couldn't see past the biased media which got the tories in power down there despite what the 'mail' says people are either happy with the SNP up here or even if they aren't they dont have any 'real' alternatives.
Labour, tories and just London-centric and the Lib dems are a waste of space so the SNP win by default. I don't see how the SNP are toxic in Wales? Strange statement unless of course your just obsessing again and blaming them for squirrels stealing things from your fruit bowl ;D
So I change my little englander to little britlander.. that make you feel better? ;)
-
Hmm hypocrite? Really? You are the one who put up what I was thinking so I took a tounge in cheek swipe at what you think, hardly hypocritical ::)
As for trying to get a bit of debate going like I say I am repeatedly reading your posts which obsessively prattle on about the SNP no matter what the subject so again, obsessed much!!
I guess your Welsh then pity you couldn't see past the biased media which got the tories in power down there despite what the 'mail' says people are either happy with the SNP up here or even if they aren't they dont have any 'real' alternatives.
Labour, tories and just London-centric and the Lib dems are a waste of space so the SNP win by default. I don't see how the SNP are toxic in Wales? Strange statement unless of course your just obsessing again and blaming them for squirrels stealing things from your fruit bowl ;D
So I change my little englander to little britlander.. that make you feel better? ;)
SNP come across as being toxic because the stand only for people that are Scottish. I'm interested in politics the SNPs impact has been massive on politics over the last year. I have always said SNP have brilliant politicians.
-
Jakswan comes across as toxic because the phrase civic nationalism seems struck for his vocabulary
-
Jakswan comes across as toxic because the phrase civic nationalism seems struck for his vocabulary
Good ole spin.
-
Jakswan comes across as toxic because the phrase civic nationalism seems struck for his vocabulary
Good ole spin.
since I merely used the same process as you did that means your post was spin. You expressed an opinion, as did I.
-
Jakswan comes across as toxic because the phrase civic nationalism seems struck for his vocabulary
Good ole spin.
since I merely used the same process as you did that means your post was spin. You expressed an opinion, as did I.
I said, admittedly based on anecdotal evidence, that the SNP are seen as toxic south of the border, this is due to the fact that the SNP only stand for people that are Scottish.
Adding civic to the word doesn't negate that point, the issue is with nationalism even if it is spun to be a more tolerant version than ethnic nationalism.
The tories claim to represent everyone, although I suspect many are not rich enough, the labour party claim to represent everyone.... the SNP only claim represent people who are Scottish.
-
I said, admittedly based on anecdotal evidence, that the SNP are seen as toxic south of the border, this is due to the fact that the SNP only stand for people that are Scottish.
Ah 'seen' as toxic.. fair enough perhaps by some but you have to see it from a Scottish point of view Jak, we had years and years of voting for Labour getting tory then Labour became tory lite so it is/was nice to actually vote for someone that do stand for us.
Adding civic to the word doesn't negate that point, the issue is with nationalism even if it is spun to be a more tolerant version than ethnic nationalism.
There's a difference between nationalism and self determination but you don't seem to see it.
I couldn't give a f where you came from if you live in Scotland you are part of this country and welcome unlike English Nationalism which tends to have a nasty mix of racism and introvertism and I object to being part of that even if it's only by loose association of the UK.
The tories claim to represent everyone, although I suspect many are not rich enough, the labour party claim to represent everyone.... the SNP only claim represent people who are Scottish.
Well I would agree with the SNP definition and see nothing bad about it but from my view over the wall the Tories represent their rich mates and south England, Labour represent well I haven't a clue what labour represent they were a left wing party representing the workers but over the last 20 years they also have represented the their rich mates and the south of England even though they are trying to get back to what they were but in Scotland at least it's too late.
See we can debate it like adults :)
-
... fair enough perhaps by some but you have to see it from a Scottish point of view Jak, we had years and years of voting for Labour getting tory then Labour became tory lite so it is/was nice to actually vote for someone that do stand for us.
That's the nature of a democracy, though. We do get who we vote for - you want to reclassify who 'we' are here. I come from an area that's returned Lib Dems repeatedly, yet we've never 'had our turn', because that's not how it works. If you don't like the idea that you vote one way and don't get adequate representation, then don't withdraw, fight to change the system.
O.
-
Ah 'seen' as toxic.. fair enough perhaps by some but you have to see it from a Scottish point of view Jak, we had years and years of voting for Labour getting tory then Labour became tory lite so it is/was nice to actually vote for someone that do stand for us.
I might well support the SNP if I qualified as Scottish, I doubt it though I've never been much of a nationalist of any flavour. I recall in the 1980s wondering why all my Welsh mates were supporting Argentina when they played England, oddly they don't seem to do that much now.
There's a difference between nationalism and self determination but you don't seem to see it.
I couldn't give a f where you came from if you live in Scotland you are part of this country and welcome unlike English Nationalism which tends to have a nasty mix of racism and introvertism and I object to being part of that even if it's only by loose association of the UK.
Yes I understand there are different forms of nationalism but it is still nationalism.
Well I would agree with the SNP definition and see nothing bad about it but from my view over the wall the Tories represent their rich mates and south England,
Yes the SNP represent a group and the Tories might represent another. Odd but the Tories have helped SNP thrive in Scotland and the SNP in turn helped the Tories win power.
I think parties that support everyone better represent everyone.
Labour represent well I haven't a clue what labour represent they were a left wing party representing the workers but over the last 20 years they also have represented the their rich mates and the south of England even though they are trying to get back to what they were but in Scotland at least it's too late.
See we can debate it like adults :)
They always tried to represent the working people, lost their way it seems. There is still support of their ideology in Wales & many other parts of the UK. They will fight on I don't think people will all surrender even if the Scots have deserted them. :)
-
I think Labour and the Lib Dems have been much better at helping the Tories into power than the SNP
-
I always find it amusing when two different people use the flag of their nation and one is a noble patriot while the other is a racist. Of course, there are no racists or racism in Scotland.
I always enjoy reading the comment in the HYS bit of some BBC articles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34533955
-
I always find it amusing when two different people use the flag of their nation and one is a noble patriot while the other is a racist. Of course, there are no racists or racism in Scotland.
I always enjoy reading the comment in the HYS bit of some BBC articles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34533955
Who said anything about racism?
-
Who said anything about racism?
KO alluded to it #285
I'm sure independence will not be far away, thank goodness, once the SNP manage to get a few more through the education system full of Scottishness & speaking Scots brainwashed with Bannockurn and the defeat of the evil English who tried to conquer their country, and once they pass legislation to let 12 years old on vote then they're onto a winner.
-
Who said anything about racism?
KO alluded to it #285
I'm sure independence will not be far away, thank goodness, once the SNP manage to get a few more through the education system full of Scottishness & speaking Scots brainwashed with Bannockurn and the defeat of the evil English who tried to conquer their country, and once they pass legislation to let 12 years old and up vote then they're onto a winner.
-
I'm sure independence will not be far away, thank goodness, once the SNP manage to get a few more through the education system full of Scottishness & speaking Scots brainwashed with Bannockurn and the defeat of the evil English who tried to conquer their country, and once they pass legislation to let 12 years old on vote then they're onto a winner.
Hmm I would reply to this if there was anything that wasn't total bollocks but ... it all seems to be the same UKIP rhetoric that David Coburn comes out with and is soundly laughed at for saying so, any relation JP? ::)