Scottish Parliamentary Elections....

[sKipper]

Do any of the more obviously slavering at the mouth specimens really think they're actually persuading anyone to vote SNP with their posts?

Does this more obviously slavering at the mouth specimen really think he's actually persuading anyone to vote Labour with his posts ?

[lucky]

No I don't think any of us are looking to change how anyone is going to vote. This is a football message board ,where fellow Hibees chat and have a discussion on a variety of subjects. If anyone truly believes they are going change peoples voting intentions by posting on this board. They are sadly mistaken. But just in case make sure you vote Scottish Labour

[ancienthibby]

What a load of absolute propagandist drivel. Its a long time since I have read anything on here quite so fundamentally dishonest as this. Either that or it betrays total ignorance of politics.

Setting out a manifesto, set of committments or indeed achievements for a particular geographical area or sector of the economy is one thing. Specifically lauding the advance of one city at the expense of another is entirely different. It is divisive, shameless and the lowest of the low kind of political spin.

Specifically the leaflet says (among other things): "The SNP is funding Glasgow 40 per cent more than Edinburgh. That is the latest good news from the Scottish Government for the city. In the latest budget Glasgow was awarded £2617 per head while Edinburgh got £1821."

And this from a Party that claims to stand up for Scotland. How does grubbing for votes in Glasgow at the explicit cost of the interests of Edinburgh show a regard for either the Scottish national interest or for honest political debate. Anyone who defends that has lost all perspective, blinded by their own myopic political bias.

:faf::faf::faf:

Now that was quite funny - I imagine you typing with one finger while you're trying and failing to keep your high horse under control! :not worth

So-called league table of Holyrood spending support for cities and towns were published at least a year ago and maybe more often. There is nothing new in this.

And what is not new is Labour politicians bleating on and on about how Glasgae has been unfairly dealt with (see constant whining from Gordon Mathieson) so the record is only being set straight.

By the way, in which sandwich shop in which part of the country will the weegreycarcrash happen today??:devil:

The public should be warned.:agree:

[ancienthibby]

No I don't think any of us are looking to change how anyone is going to vote. This is a football message board ,where fellow Hibees chat and have a discussion on a variety of subjects. If anyone truly believes they are going change peoples voting intentions by posting on this board. They are sadly mistaken. But just in case make sure you vote Scottish Labour

Well now, that is just a real impossibility since Scottish Labour do not exist!!::wink:

It's the Liebor Party of Westminster in Scotland that you no doubt mean!:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

:spammy:

I have added some text in bold, because thats what we do


Really, what is the point in your posting on this thread if you don't want to engage with the arguments? I'm quite happy for you to do the personal stuff if that rocks your boat but it does seem like a waste of time to be at your keyboard doing that and not express an opinion at the same time.

[One Day Soon]

It is something I hope for as well as I also have very gradually changed my voting position over the years and I really am in no doubt whatsover that Scotland under an SNP administration is definetly the way forward.

Hopefully the Independendence referendum won't be blocked again by the Unionist parties but even if they are as I expect they will be then the SNP have already proved their competence as a minority government and I am sure they can continue with this for a second term.

It wasn't blocked by the Unionist parties - it was never brought forward by the SNP in the first place. A pretty shocking derelection of duty for an independence party.

Christ, if politicians all took the spineless view expressed by the apologists for the Tartan Underpants Brigade then we would never have seen the legislation creating the NHS brought before Parliament in the 1940s.

I love this notion that you don't even debate something because you might not win the vote. Even Tommy Sheridan had the guts to bring things forward for debate in Parliament when there was little chance of winning the vote. More than a little ironic for a party that makes a fetish of the Battle of Bannockburn - if the great leader Salmond's view had pertained then, the Scots would never have engaged an English army two or three times their size.

Only a spin obsessed sham of a government could take the view that the SNP has, where you end up not even trying to implement the policy which is the single founding purpose of the Party. And some people have the nerve to argue that Labour isn't the party it once was.

Maybe Hibernian should take the same view the next time we reach a Scottish cup final. We're not going to take to the field because we think we'll probably lose - pure ar5ery.

[One Day Soon]

Thanks for the response. It's good to know that we broadly agree on at least one thing!

More than one I'm sure. In any event anything that is interesting in political ideas and thought generally comes from the friction between left and right, wherever that rubbing point is. The debate between left and nationalism just generates flag debates leading nowhere.

[One Day Soon]

Does this more obviously slavering at the mouth specimen really think he's actually persuading anyone to vote Labour with his posts ?

No, its mostly just adult education missionary work.

[One Day Soon]

Well now, that is just a real impossibility since Scottish Labour do not exist!!::wink:

It's the Liebor Party of Westminster in Scotland that you no doubt mean!:greengrin

Did a Labour boy at school knock your 'see you Jimmy' hat off when you were little?

[sKipper]

It wasn't blocked by the Unionist parties - it was never brought forward by the SNP in the first place. A pretty shocking derelection of duty for an independence party.

Christ, if politicians all took the spineless view expressed by the apologists for the Tartan Underpants Brigade then we would never have seen the legislation creating the NHS brought before Parliament in the 1940s.

I love this notion that you don't even debate something because you might not win the vote. Even Tommy Sheridan had the guts to bring things forward for debate in Parliament when there was little chance of winning the vote. More than a little ironic for a party that makes a fetish of the Battle of Bannockburn - if the great leader Salmond's view had pertained then, the Scots would never have engaged an English army two or three times their size.

Only a spin obsessed sham of a government could take the view that the SNP has, where you end up not even trying to implement the policy which is the single founding purpose of the Party. And some people have the nerve to argue that Labour isn't the party it once was.

Maybe Hibernian should take the same view the next time we reach a Scottish cup final. We're not going to take to the field because we think we'll probably lose - pure ar5ery.

There's more spin in your posts than the total from all governments in the Scottish Parliament since its inception. :agree:

[ancienthibby]

Did a Labour boy at school knock your 'see you Jimmy' hat off when you were little?

ODS,

Take a memo to yourself:

'When in a deep hole, the only advice is to stop digging'!:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

There's more spin in your posts than the total from all governments in the Scottish Parliament since its inception. :agree:

Complete capitulation. Excellent.

[Mibbes Aye]

As for independence, do you understand how minority government works ?

If the other parties vote against or threaten to then you have no chance of implementing a policy.

Concensus and negotiation are the way to do things, qualities no Labour goverment have ever entertained in my time.



Oh dear.

It's good that you have an opinion but it shouldn't be at the expense of simple facts.

Scotland has had a devolved government for little over a decade and for two-thirds of that time, it has been run by Labour in coalition.

Tons of legislation passed in that time, much of it genuinely progressive.

Just because the SNP failed to deliver when in government doesn't mean everyone else did.

[Mibbes Aye]

Health is a devolved matter though, so the NHS in Scotland is not subject to these reforms, unless the Scottish Tories manage a miracle up here, or the reforms that are proposed in England are that much of a resounding success, we decide to adopt them up here.

And I'll follow on from what others have said, independence has not gone out the window for the SNP. It is not a sideshow. It's been good governance from the SNP, because they knew in the last Parliament, that any proposal to put forward a referendum for independence, or to give more devolved powers to Scotland, would be voted down by the three Westminster parties. There was no doubt in that. What would be the point in wasting precious parliamentary time? I'm sure the same people who are criticising the SNP on this issue, would be also be laying criticism at their door for wasting parliamentary time. The other parties are scared of how a vote for independence would go (for what its worth, independence would be a no vote at this time imo, with Scotland getting more devolved powers). But that's not the reason the SNP haven't proposed a referendum to parliament. They know the other parties don't want the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future.

It's been great spin for Iain Gray to say he and his party are the party for Scotland.

I think you've missed my point - will try and rephrase it :greengrin

We have a government in Westminster that ultimately has a much bigger impact on our lives than the one at Holyrood IMO - especially when the one at Holyrood seems incrementalist in so many of its ways.

The Tory government is engaged in a savage attack on the institutions that many people in this country value, cherish even. The NHS is merely one example.

They have no mandate for that. One way of opposing it is a strong voice in government at Holyrood. I think people want a government that will stand up to the Tories and their 'slash and burn' approach to society.

The SNP don't offer that.

And they've not said how they'll protect the NHS from cuts, given that they're going to have to find billions from elsewhere if they do. What does get cut?

All this in the face of hugely-increased demand on the NHS due to demographic pressure. So basically, 'no cut' is actually a cut because need is outstripping resources available.

As for your other point, if the people of Scotland genuinely wanted independence, and the SNP pushed for it and the other three parties blocked it - wouldn't the other parties risk decimation in the polls?

The people of Scotland don't really seem to want independence though, otherwise the SNP would surely keep their promises.

Which leaves us wondering what the point of the SNP is.............

Still, a ministerial car is probably a fair swap for your principles :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

If you are going to use me to bolster your case, represent me properly.

You're right - I fear a Labour administration more than an SNP one. Nothing to do with policy or independence, seeing as there is barely a cigarette paper between the two parties. I fear Scotland having a useless **** like Gray as our 'Leader' and the bunch of no-marks who qualify as Labour MSPs in positions of power. That's it. I also find it embarrassing that my constituency returns Gray.

If Scottish Labour had a better leader/team then I'd stick to voting Tory.

Good to see that you still haven't moved beyond the "Don't vote for the nasty Tories. Remember what they did 30 years ago." argument. You do love to parrot the current Labour party line. Some of the most deprived areas in the country are Labour strongholds - some voters need to start to question what Labour MPs and governments have done to help them meet their aspirations or improve their lives in the last 15 years rather than worrying about the red herring of the early 80's.

I don't think you're the only Tory who will vote SNP, Beefster :greengrin

Happy to acknowledge you may not be voting SNP out of fear though :agree:

I think there is a lot of fear amongst Tories out there though. And the SNP.

The reason for that is the amount of personal vitriol directed at Iain Gray. Time and time again on here, it's name calling and personal abuse towards someone who folk then claim has no chance of leading Scotland anyway.

If Gray's that grey then why do folk waste such time in personal attacks?

As a counterpoint, if you take the Tories at Westminster, I have little time for Osborne's political beliefs, little time for his ideology. I think the effects of those beliefs can be abhorrent, in the savagery they inflict on the weak and vulnerable.

As for Cameron I genuinely believe he has no real intellect to speak of (despite the best education money can buy). And that remark about his privileged background is about as personal as I'm likely to get.

Don't see the need for the depths of petty namecalling that we sometimes see on here unfortunately. TBH we probably agree on that.

One final point - I bet the Tories would love it if they could sideline other people calling them nasty. I would love it if I could stop describing Tory policy as nasty.

Maybe if the Tories showed a bit more compassion for ordinary people, maybe if they put the weak and vulnerable ahead of trying to find pre-election tax cuts for the well-off, maybe if they dropped the backdoor privatisation of the NHS and the schools system, maybe if they stopped actively writing off a whole generation, just like they did in the 1980s, maybe then people wouldn't describe them as nasty.

It's just a thought like.... :greengrin

[MountcastleHibs]

I think you've missed my point - will try and rephrase it :greengrin

We have a government in Westminster that ultimately has a much bigger impact on our lives than the one at Holyrood IMO - especially when the one at Holyrood seems incrementalist in so many of its ways.

The Tory government is engaged in a savage attack on the institutions that many people in this country value, cherish even. The NHS is merely one example.

They have no mandate for that. One way of opposing it is a strong voice in government at Holyrood. I think people want a government that will stand up to the Tories and their 'slash and burn' approach to society.

The SNP don't offer that.

And they've not said how they'll protect the NHS from cuts, given that they're going to have to find billions from elsewhere if they do. What does get cut?

All this in the face of hugely-increased demand on the NHS due to demographic pressure. So basically, 'no cut' is actually a cut because need is outstripping resources available.

As for your other point, if the people of Scotland genuinely wanted independence, and the SNP pushed for it and the other three parties blocked it - wouldn't the other parties risk decimation in the polls?

The people of Scotland don't really seem to want independence though, otherwise the SNP would surely keep their promises.

Which leaves us wondering what the point of the SNP is.............

Still, a ministerial car is probably a fair swap for your principles :greengrin

I understand your point now, although I disagree with it. The SNP may not be the strongest voice to stand up to the Tories, but they're hell of a lot more stronger than a Labour administration would be, in my opinion of course.

I agree with the point in your second post about the party name calling and personal attacks. Simply embarrassing that we can't have a sensible, reasoned debate without resorting to childish behaviour such as that. Yes, I have stated my dislike for Iain Gray. Simply because, having met the man, and watching him in Parliament and in interviews, I don't like him.

[Mibbes Aye]

I understand your point now, although I disagree with it. The SNP may not be the strongest voice to stand up to the Tories, but they're hell of a lot more stronger than a Labour administration would be.

Fair do's. We'll disagree on that one I suppose :agree:

[sKipper]

Oh dear.

It's good that you have an opinion but it shouldn't be at the expense of simple facts.

Scotland has had a devolved government for little over a decade and for two-thirds of that time, it has been run by Labour in coalition.

Tons of legislation passed in that time, much of it genuinely progressive.

Just because the SNP failed to deliver when in government doesn't mean everyone else did.

Jeez:rolleyes: Whit planet ???

You so called facts are wrong anyway. One term was Labour ( 4 years ). One term Lib Lab ( 4 years ). But you also conveniently omit that both terms were MAJORITY rule.

Anyway, the SNP have done more in minority than Labour did in 8 years.

One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council.

[sKipper]

I don't think you're the only Tory who will vote SNP, Beefster :greengrin

Happy to acknowledge you may not be voting SNP out of fear though :agree:

I think there is a lot of fear amongst Tories out there though. And the SNP.

The reason for that is the amount of personal vitriol directed at Iain Gray. Time and time again on here, it's name calling and personal abuse towards someone who folk then claim has no chance of leading Scotland anyway.




Its fear alright.

The thought that such an incompetent could be First Minister of Scotland is truly terrifying. Not to mention embarrassing.

[marinello59]

Jeez:rolleyes: Whit planet ???

The SNP have done more in minority than Labour did in 8 years.

One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council.

I think Donald Dewar for one saw it as rather more than that.

[sKipper]

I think Donald Dewar for one saw it as rather more than that.

Donald Dewar certainly did. Would that there were a politician of such stature in Labour these days.

The benefits to the Scottish people were negligible during his leadership though.

[One Day Soon]

Jeez:rolleyes: Whit planet ???

You so called facts are wrong anyway. One term was Labour ( 4 years ). One term Lib Lab ( 4 years ). But you also conveniently omit that both terms were MAJORITY rule.

Fail. Both of the first two terms were Labour/Lib-Dem coalitions. Go and look it up before posting your usual nonsense.

Anyway, the SNP have done more in minority than Labour did in 8 years.

Fail. There's a list as long as your arm of the achievements of the first two coalitions and that list is a lot longer than the made up one just published by the SNP. Though frankly a 'my list is bigger than your list' debate is pretty daft.

One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council.

Fail. There may be many reasons why people do or don't dislike Labour, but treating Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council isn't one of them. Every single time voters are asked to rate issues in order of priority the status of Parliament and constitutional change invariably comes at or near the bottom of the list. I think you mean that inside your head "One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council". Which is nothing less than I would expect from the Tartan Underpants Brigade.

[ancienthibby]

It wasn't blocked by the Unionist parties - it was never brought forward by the SNP in the first place. A pretty shocking derelection of duty for an independence party.

Christ, if politicians all took the spineless view expressed by the apologists for the Tartan Underpants Brigade then we would never have seen the legislation creating the NHS brought before Parliament in the 1940s.

I love this notion that you don't even debate something because you might not win the vote. Even Tommy Sheridan had the guts to bring things forward for debate in Parliament when there was little chance of winning the vote. More than a little ironic for a party that makes a fetish of the Battle of Bannockburn - if the great leader Salmond's view had pertained then, the Scots would never have engaged an English army two or three times their size.

Only a spin obsessed sham of a government could take the view that the SNP has, where you end up not even trying to implement the policy which is the single founding purpose of the Party. And some people have the nerve to argue that Labour isn't the party it once was.

Maybe Hibernian should take the same view the next time we reach a Scottish cup final. We're not going to take to the field because we think we'll probably lose - pure ar5ery.

ODS,

Any remaining credibility that you might have left on this blog, has just disappeared with your pathetic resort to blasphemy in order to try to make your feeble point!

That is just completely ODiouS, and in Holy Week as well!!:agree:

Go get another gig!!:na na:

[sKipper]

Fail. There may be many reasons why people do or don't dislike Labour, but treating Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council isn't one of them. Every single time voters are asked to rate issues in order of priority the status of Parliament and constitutional change invariably comes at or near the bottom of the list. I think you mean that inside your head "One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council". Which is nothing less than I would expect from the Tartan Underpants Brigade.

Dream on.

Labour achievments were to increase unemployment, gave us the worst health and early deaths in Western Europe and did nothing to tackle growing crime.

Fortunately all of these trends have been reversed in the last 4 years.

[lucky]

Skipper unemployment.is higher now than 4 years ago and what facts are you using with regards to early death rates. Overall crime figures are down but violent crime is up . The nats have done some good but none.of the above

[bighairyfaeleith]

Fail. There may be many reasons why people do or don't dislike Labour, but treating Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council isn't one of them. Every single time voters are asked to rate issues in order of priority the status of Parliament and constitutional change invariably comes at or near the bottom of the list. I think you mean that inside your head "One of the main reasons Labour are so disliked is because they treated the Parliament as nothing more than a glorified Council". Which is nothing less than I would expect from the Tartan Underpants Brigade.

Tartan underpants brigade, oh you are a card :rolleyes:

[marinello59]

All media now reporting that News International (the voice of the Liebor Party) HAS NOW ADMITTED PHONE HACKING AND IS ALREADY SETTING UP A COMPENSATION FUND FOR VICTIMS!!

Just how many car crashes can the weegreychichencoward's party create.:aok:

Maybe you should change that to News international (Voice of the SNP.) :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Maybe you should change that to News international (Voice of the SNP.) :greengrin

I seem to recall that The Sun (as that's who you're really referring to) came out against the SNP at the 2007 election!

You just can't get consistency these days!:greengrin

[marinello59]

I seem to recall that The Sun (as that's who you're really referring to) came out against the SNP at the 2007 election!

You just can't get consistency these days!:greengrin

Aye, they called that one wrong. Expect headlines next month saying'' it was the sun wot won it.''
Still..................I take it that you will be claiming the phone hacking admission as an SNP car crash moment. Just to be consistent of course. :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Aye, they called that one wrong. Expect headlines next month saying'' it was the sun wot won it.''
Still..................I take it that you will be claiming the phone hacking admission as an SNP car crash moment. Just to be consistent of course. :greengrin

That would not be possible since the copyright/IP for political car crashes resides in perpetuity with the weegreychickencarcrash.:greengrin

Interestingly, as I type, the editor of that paper is speaking live on Radio Scotland saying that his paper does not support the SNP's policy on independence.

I make that endorsement then a bit of a damp squib.:agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Jeez:rolleyes: Whit planet ???

You so called facts are wrong anyway. One term was Labour ( 4 years ). One term Lib Lab ( 4 years )


That's simply not true :greengrin

Genuinely, if you want credibility then you need to get basic facts right, surely?

At some point maybe you will acknowledge that Labour ran Scotland for eight years, in a coalition, a partnership, with the Lib Dems. That's not an opinion, just a fact.

But that would give the lie to the statement you made below.


Concensus and negotiation are the way to do things, qualities no Labour goverment have ever entertained in my time.


Maybe you're better sticking to your original story :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

ODS,

Any remaining credibility that you might have left on this blog, has just disappeared with your pathetic resort to blasphemy in order to try to make your feeble point!

That is just completely ODiouS, and in Holy Week as well!!:agree:

Go get another gig!!:na na:

If you are the judge on credibility then I am very happy to be found wanting.

But back to your serial denial on SNP/Salmond screw ups:

1. Early release of mass murderer Megrahi.
2. Explosion of Arc of Prsoperity economic policy.
3. Disastrous consequences of Salmond advice to vote Lib Dem in England.
4. Spineless failure to pose the question on independence.

That's quite an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to **** in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence. What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected?

Even a Sun reader like yourself should be able to understand that list.

Does it make it painful to sit down after being used so comprehensively as a prophylactic by the Tories and their friends? You know, helping usher them in the door of No.10 one day and then being adopted by the Sun as the home of the Tory tactical vote in Scotland the next?

Still, you will remember the SNP MPs selling Scotland down the river to Thatcher in 1979 by voting to bring down the Labour government so presumably you're getting used to it by now.

[One Day Soon]

Dream on.

Labour achievments were to increase unemployment, gave us the worst health and early deaths in Western Europe and did nothing to tackle growing crime.

Fortunately all of these trends have been reversed in the last 4 years.

Have you read 1984? Your posts are strikingly reminiscent of 'four legs good, two legs bad'. Except without any of the irony or originality.

Did you find time to check up on the first two Scottish Parliament administrations yet?

[ancienthibby]

If you are the judge on credibility then I am very happy to be found wanting.

But back to your serial denial on SNP/Salmond screw ups:

1. Early release of mass murderer Megrahi.
2. Explosion of Arc of Prsoperity economic policy.
3. Disastrous consequences of Salmond advice to vote Lib Dem in England.
4. Spineless failure to pose the question on independence.

That's quite an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to **** in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence. What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected?

Even a Sun reader like yourself should be able to understand that list.

Does it make it painful to sit down after being used so comprehensively as a prophylactic by the Tories and their friends? You know, helping usher them in the door of No.10 one day and then being adopted by the Sun as the home of the Tory tactical vote in Scotland the next?

Still, you will remember the SNP MPs selling Scotland down the river to Thatcher in 1979 by voting to bring down the Labour government so presumably you're getting used to it by now.

Without doubt that is the vilest post I have ever read on this site!

The Sun's defection from the Liebor Party truly seems to have rocked your cage - so much so that you can post such trash.

And now that your erstwhile friend, George Galloway, says that the SNP will win the election (PA news report) I assume that will elicit another outpouring of bile from yourself.

Have a hard, hard few words with yourself.

[bighairyfaeleith]

If you are the judge on credibility then I am very happy to be found wanting.

But back to your serial denial on SNP/Salmond screw ups:

1. Early release of mass murderer Megrahi.
2. Explosion of Arc of Prsoperity economic policy.
3. Disastrous consequences of Salmond advice to vote Lib Dem in England.
4. Spineless failure to pose the question on independence.

That's quite an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to **** in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence. What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected?

Even a Sun reader like yourself should be able to understand that list.

Does it make it painful to sit down after being used so comprehensively as a prophylactic by the Tories and their friends? You know, helping usher them in the door of No.10 one day and then being adopted by the Sun as the home of the Tory tactical vote in Scotland the next?

Still, you will remember the SNP MPs selling Scotland down the river to Thatcher in 1979 by voting to bring down the Labour government so presumably you're getting used to it by now.

I think you are actually a lib dem or a tory in disguise, you can't be a labour supporter because you are doing a hell of a job of turning people off them.:lips seal

[marinello59]

The Sun's defection from the Liebor Party truly seems to have rocked your cage - .

:faf: One minute you are slagging off the Labour Party because of your mistaken belief that News International were the mouthpiece of the Labour Party, the next you are crowing about their support.
I am still a don't know at this late stage but the last thing that would change my opinion would be a newspaper editorial line, no matter what paper that was. That disreputable rag will make no difference to the outcome of this election, only the truly cretinous would believe otherwise.

[Sir David Gray]

i've made this point to you before, but you ignored it, i happen to think deliberately.

it has been shown that there was massive pressure coming from westminster on scotland to release him. it wasn't really for compassionate leave or anything like that, that was just how it had to be dressed up. it wouldn't have mattered who was in charge at holyrood, they'd all have had this forced upon them.

I certainly haven't ignored anything that you have said on purpose.

Maybe the British Government was pulling the strings in the background by pushing for al-Megrahi's release. However the SNP took responsibility for this decision at the time and continue to state that they, and they alone, made the decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

Although I would still have found it to be completely wrong, I would have been more comfortable with the Labour Government at Westminster taking responsibility for the decision to release him. Despite the SNP changing their title, legally, this decision was not made by any national government. The SNP are technically and legally still known as the Scottish Executive and I don't believe that such a major decision like this should have been left to an authority that wasn't even a proper government.


that's a bold statement. there's been different laws for scotland long before the scottish parliament came into existence. i suspect that this opinion of yours is down to principle, rather than actual practical common sense. we're two different nations with different cultures in politics, law, health and so on. what sense is there in just jamming us together in hope of attaining some kind of 'fairness' or something, even though there has been nothing to suggest this is required? :confused:

I just don't think it's right that some parts of the UK get some privileges that other parts don't get and vice versa. If we're going to be one nation (the United Kingdom) then I do believe that everyone in the country should have the same privileges, the same opportunities and the same laws.

If not then we should become independent and the four nations that make up the UK should go their separate ways.


I appreciate that my earlier post was a total copy and paste job but any of us here can appreciate that as enthusiasts and not politicians we don't have the time to paragraph every part of a party's campaign with documented evidence and personal opinion; it was merely a response to SiMar's challenge that he may not have previously read. Even so, I will try to do so at the start of next week. Despite being an SNP supporter I still feel that they are my 'party of best fit' and am happy to disagree where I see fit. I will also answer FH's disagreements with my points.



The problem with politics is that the smarter people can make up their own minds; so we are left to canvas for the vote of the idiot, hence the crap coming out from all parties.

Maybe I've missed it (apologies if I have) but did you ever get round to replying to my previous post?

[ancienthibby]

:faf: One minute you are slagging off the Labour Party because of your mistaken belief that News International were the mouthpiece of the Labour Party, the next you are crowing about their support.
I am still a don't know at this late stage but the last thing that would change my opinion would be a newspaper editorial line, no matter what paper that was. That disreputable rag will make no difference to the outcome of this election, only the truly cretinous would believe otherwise.

Er, no!!

On the Sun story I posted that I thought its coming out for the SNP was a 'damp squib' - no crowing from me.:agree:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I certainly haven't ignored anything that you have said on purpose.

Maybe the British Government was pulling the strings in the background by pushing for al-Megrahi's release. However the SNP took responsibility for this decision at the time and continue to state that they, and they alone, made the decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

Although I would still have found it to be completely wrong, I would have been more comfortable with the Labour Government at Westminster taking responsibility for the decision to release him. Despite the SNP changing their title, legally, this decision was not made by any national government. The SNP are technically and legally still known as the Scottish Executive and I don't believe that such a major decision like this should have been left to an authority that wasn't even a proper government.



I just don't think it's right that some parts of the UK get some privileges that other parts don't get and vice versa. If we're going to be one nation (the United Kingdom) then I do believe that everyone in the country should have the same privileges, the same opportunities and the same laws.

If not then we should become independent and the four nations that make up the UK should go their separate ways.

Maybe I've missed it (apologies if I have) but did you ever get round to replying to my previous post?

So you think the british government should have disregarded our legal setup and made the decision for us:rolleyes:

I disagree that certain parts of the uk shouldn't get certain priviliges, it's actually one of the things that works well in the uk now we have devolved power. The problem with the EU is they are trying to do one size fits all policies and it doesn't work, in the UK we are now doing the opposite and I think it works well.

There is no reason why countries can't work together as the UK but keep there independence on local issues like for example, tuition fees, the NHS. Surely we are enlightened enough society that we can get our heads round the idea that not every part of the UK has the same requirements and issues.

Also, for the record, all the people stating it as fact that megrahi shoudn't have been released, many people in this country disagree and it was legally the correct decision so get over it. The fact that he's not dead yet is a pretty poor line that I'd expect from a jambo but surely we can rise above that sort of nonsense?

[One Day Soon]

Without doubt that is the vilest post I have ever read on this site!

The Sun's defection from the Liebor Party truly seems to have rocked your cage - so much so that you can post such trash.

And now that your erstwhile friend, George Galloway, says that the SNP will win the election (PA news report) I assume that will elicit another outpouring of bile from yourself.

Have a hard, hard few words with yourself.


I think you meant most vile, not vilest. Didn't you?

Aye, its such trash that you aren't capable of rebutting a single part of it. Are you?

Galloway's judgement is such that he also saluted the 'indefatigability' of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was the organiser, among other things, of systematised rape camps. I don't think Galloway has good judgement. Do you?

There are hard, hard words alright. You are in the camp of the Tories, doing Tory work. Get over it. Can you?

Let's recap again just in case you feel capable for once of engaging with the debate rather than retreating to the traditional Nationalist rent-a-mob approach.

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

[One Day Soon]

I think you are actually a lib dem or a tory in disguise, you can't be a labour supporter because you are doing a hell of a job of turning people off them.:lips seal

Do you really think it is sensible not to tell the truth about the SNP? Which part of my post did you disagree with?

I think I am doing a reasonable job of upsetting the Nats and their apologists by repeating a few home truths about their record. And I'm not trying to persuade anyone to vote Labour. Everyone on here is big enough and certainly daft enough to make up their own minds how to vote.

[One Day Soon]

Donald Dewar certainly did. Would that there were a politician of such stature in Labour these days.

The benefits to the Scottish people were negligible during his leadership though.

That may be the dumbest thing I have read so far in this debate - which is really saying something.

Just for a start it was Dewar who piloted the legislation through Westminster under Labour which created the Scottish Parliament in Labour's first term. Presumably you think the Parliament is of negligible benefit to the Scottish people?

Perhaps the real problem here is that nationalists think that they, and they alone, are real Scots. No-one else qualifies and therefore everyone else must be all bad. It is a dangerous and elitist kind of thinking which we have seen elsewhere in tragic recent european history.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That may be the dumbest thing I have read so far in this debate - which is really saying something.

Just for a start it was Dewar who piloted the legislation through Westminster under Labour which created the Scottish Parliament in Labour's first term. Presumably you think the Parliament is of negligible benefit to the Scottish people?

Perhaps the real problem here is that nationalists think that they, and they alone, are real Scots. No-one else qualifies and therefore everyone else must be all bad. It is a dangerous and elitist kind of thinking which we have seen elsewhere in tragic recent european history.

Your actually not right in the head are you?

First of all, in setting the parliament up through westminster he was not actually the first minister at that point, therefore it doesn't apply in the context of the post you are applying it to

Your last paragraph frankly just shows the size of the chip on your shoulder towards the snp.

seriously get a life:rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Do you really think it is sensible not to tell the truth about the SNP? Which part of my post did you disagree with?

I think I am doing a reasonable job of upsetting the Nats and their apologists by repeating a few home truths about their record. And I'm not trying to persuade anyone to vote Labour. Everyone on here is big enough and certainly daft enough to make up their own minds how to vote.

if your posts contained some truths them maybe, but actually it's all just your opinions stated as fact, you just try and force them through as facts by berating the previous poster, whoever that may be.

[MountcastleHibs]

I think you meant most vile, not vilest. Didn't you?

Aye, its such trash that you aren't capable of rebutting a single part of it. Are you?

Galloway's judgement is such that he also saluted the 'indefatigability' of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was the organiser, among other things, of systematised rape camps. I don't think Galloway has good judgement. Do you?

There are hard, hard words alright. You are in the camp of the Tories, doing Tory work. Get over it. Can you?

Let's recap again just in case you feel capable for once of engaging with the debate rather than retreating to the traditional Nationalist rent-a-mob approach.

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

So what would Labour do differently to stop the 'Tory cuts'? If I remember correctly, Darling warned if Labour were reelected their cuts would be more savage than Thatcher. What would a Labour administration do? I ask because I genuinely have no idea what Labour would do to stop cuts. Labour are full of wonderful statements about what needs to happen, but they don't say how they'll do it. Labour policy is pretty non existent and any that does exist is either nicked from the SNP, or has no substance to it.

I remember during the Labour conference, Ian Gray's embarrassing sucking up to Ed Miliband. 'I'll give you Scotland' is what he said. What does that mean? Labour policy imposed from the Westminster opposition? You talk about the SNP unable to stop the Tories, but in 8 years of a Lib-Lab coalition, we were run from Westminster. I think it's great that the SNP have reversed that trend, and running the country from Holyrood.

[marinello59]

So what would Labour do differently to stop the 'Tory cuts'? If I remember correctly, Darling warned if Labour were reelected their cuts would be more savage than Thatcher. What would a Labour administration do? I ask because I genuinely have no idea what Labour would do to stop cuts. Labour are full of wonderful statements about what needs to happen, but they don't say how they'll do it. Labour policy is pretty non existent and any that does exist is either nicked from the SNP, or has no substance to it.

How is any party in power at Holyrood going to stop the 'Tory' cuts? Is any party seriously saying that the cuts are not necessary given the financial state of the UK? Any party that suggests it will stop the financial pain we will all have to share would be deluded in the extreme.

[MountcastleHibs]

How is any party in power at Holyrood going to stop the 'Tory' cuts? Is any party seriously saying that the cuts are not necessary given the financial state of the UK? Any party that suggests it will stop the financial pain we will all have to share would be deluded in the extreme.

That's my point. But ODS seems to suggest a Labour administration would stand up to the Tories more. Utter rubbish.

[One Day Soon]

Your actually not right in the head are you?

First of all, in setting the parliament up through westminster he was not actually the first minister at that point, therefore it doesn't apply in the context of the post you are applying it to

Your last paragraph frankly just shows the size of the chip on your shoulder towards the snp.

seriously get a life:rolleyes:

Nice to see you resorting to personal abuse rather than engaging with the debate. Still, at least I'm not making posts defending racist chants at Easter Road.

If you knew anything at all about politics you would be aware that at the point at which he was piloting the legislation he was in fact Secretary of State for Scotland. That means he was the most senior politician in Scotland, Scotland's voice at the Cabinet table and the person responsible for the policies of the UK government in Scotland. Now you can if you wish - and clearly you do for your own malign politically prejudiced reasons - dismiss the period of Labour government from '97 to '99 at which point the Scottish Parliament commenced, but to do so would be both arbitrary and nonsensical.

However, even if you somehow claim that Dewar's period in office in Scotland only started in '99 you would still have to discount all the other things achieved under his leadership in order to claim that the benefits of his leadership were negligible. These include the record number of new hospitals and schools built, the virtual elimination of youth unemployment, the creation of modern apprenticeships, the land reform legislation, the creation of the drug enforcement agency, record numbers of additional police officers, advancement and winning of the Section 28 argument against homophobia and a series of good pay settlements for public sector workers. That's without having to go and look up some list of 'achievements' somewhere.

So, trying to make this claim about Dewar is a) completely inaccurate and b) completely politically motivated. The Tartan Underpants Brigade poster claimed that Dewar's leadership had negligible benefits for Scotland. Do you now accept that this statement was just plain wrong?

It is as stupid and foolish a claim as it would be to claim that the benefits to Scotland under Salmond are negligible. During a period of record spending it would be almost impossible NOT to have done something positive and substantive.

[One Day Soon]

if your posts contained some truths them maybe, but actually it's all just your opinions stated as fact, you just try and force them through as facts by berating the previous poster, whoever that may be.

Which part of my post did you disagree with? Megrahi, Arc of Prosperity, telling England to vote Lib-Dem or failure on the independence referendum?

[steakbake]

How is any party in power at Holyrood going to stop the 'Tory' cuts? Is any party seriously saying that the cuts are not necessary given the financial state of the UK? Any party that suggests it will stop the financial pain we will all have to share would be deluded in the extreme.

Absolutely. The much vaunted "the cuts are unnecessary, we should follow the US example" looks like it is unravelling with the downgrading of the US debt.

Cameron and Osbourne will be wrong on most things over the next five years, but on this, they've got it right.

[One Day Soon]

So what would Labour do differently to stop the 'Tory cuts'? If I remember correctly, Darling warned if Labour were reelected their cuts would be more savage than Thatcher. What would a Labour administration do? I ask because I genuinely have no idea what Labour would do to stop cuts. Labour are full of wonderful statements about what needs to happen, but they don't say how they'll do it. Labour policy is pretty non existent and any that does exist is either nicked from the SNP, or has no substance to it.

I remember during the Labour conference, Ian Gray's embarrassing sucking up to Ed Miliband. 'I'll give you Scotland' is what he said. What does that mean? Labour policy imposed from the Westminster opposition? You talk about the SNP unable to stop the Tories, but in 8 years of a Lib-Lab coalition, we were run from Westminster. I think it's great that the SNP have reversed that trend, and running the country from Holyrood.

Nice twisting of what I wrote - but inaccurate. My accusation is that the SNP are once again the agents acting on behalf of the Tories. The reason the Sun is telling people to vote SNP is because they think it is the best way to damage Labour in Scotland and therefore stall a Labour recovery nationally. So far, so simple. Not exactly rocket science.

But of course the additional charge is that Salmond specifically said in the Westminster election last year that English people should vote Lib-Dem. Where has that taken us? To a Tory government delivered into No.10 by Lib Dem MPs and subsequently propped up by Lib Dem MPs - those same Lib Dems MPs elected on the kind of votes that Salmond called for. One of a number of examples of catastrophic judgement shown by Salmond, because the government those Lib Dems are propping up is now forcing massive and excessive cuts on Scotland.

No-one in their right mind can argue against tackling the UK's deficit but what is happening now is an ideological attack on public services from the Tories way beyond what is necessary to fix the deficit. It is dressed up as necessary but the truth is that instead of tackling the problem over four years they could be doing it over eight, protecting more jobs and lifeline services. What makes it worse is that their figures are designed to allow them to look at either tax cuts or increased spending in the lead up to the next election in three years time. Those tax cuts or increased spending levels will have been bought and paid for with the jobs, terms and conditions of people who are about to get the chop over the next three years.

And all of this is something that has been hastened and strengthened by Salmond's call to vote Lib Dem.

In terms of what Labour would do differently in the Scottish Parliament about the cuts the truth is that there is little difference between any of the major parties. Which is why the posturing of people on here about what a big difference Salmond and the SNP will make is just cast iron bollock5.

As to your last comment on being run from Westminster, perhaps you could tell that to Gordon Brown who lost the plot both when the Scottish Parliament decided to implement STV for local government elections against his wishes and when Free Personal Care was implemented against his wishes. Only those wearing tartan sunglasses believe this garbage.

To finish, let's get it straight. I'm not talking about the SNP being unable to stop the Tories, I'm talking about the SNP supporting the Tories. They did it in 1979 when their MPs voted to bring the Labour government down and let Thatcher in. They will happily do it again now if they think it will damage Labour and stengthen their own prospects, regardless of the consequences.

[One Day Soon]

Absolutely. The much vaunted "the cuts are unnecessary, we should follow the US example" looks like it is unravelling with the downgrading of the US debt.

Cameron and Osbourne will be wrong on most things over the next five years, but on this, they've got it right.


There's a difference between 'no cuts' (the US model to date) and 'the patient has a bad leg, let's take both off to make sure' (effectively the UK model). I think the deabte is about how far and how fast, not about whether.

[One Day Soon]

That's my point. But ODS seems to suggest a Labour administration would stand up to the Tories more. Utter rubbish.

That isn't my argument, but see other post.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Nice to see you resorting to personal abuse rather than engaging with the debate. Still, at least I'm not making posts defending racist chants at Easter Road. :faf:

If you knew anything at all about politics you would be aware that at the point at which he was piloting the legislation he was in fact Secretary of State for Scotland. That means he was the most senior politician in Scotland, Scotland's voice at the Cabinet table and the person responsible for the policies of the UK government in Scotland. Now you can if you wish - and clearly you do for your own malign politically prejudiced reasons - dismiss the period of Labour government from '97 to '99 at which point the Scottish Parliament commenced, but to do so would be both arbitrary and nonsensical.

However, even if you somehow claim that Dewar's period in office in Scotland only started in '99 you would still have to discount all the other things achieved under his leadership in order to claim that the benefits of his leadership were negligible. These include the record number of new hospitals and schools built, the virtual elimination of youth unemployment, the creation of modern apprenticeships, the land reform legislation, the creation of the drug enforcement agency, record numbers of additional police officers, advancement and winning of the Section 28 argument against homophobia and a series of good pay settlements for public sector workers. That's without having to go and look up some list of 'achievements' somewhere.

So, trying to make this claim about Dewar is a) completely inaccurate and b) completely politically motivated. The Tartan Underpants Brigade poster claimed that Dewar's leadership had negligible benefits for Scotland. Do you now accept that this statement was just plain wrong?

It is as stupid and foolish a claim as it would be to claim that the benefits to Scotland under Salmond are negligible. During a period of record spending it would be almost impossible NOT to have done something positive and substantive.

At no point have I said that dewars leadership was negligible, what i said was that like so many of your replies, you have picked a point that is factually incorrect to suit your argument.He was not first minister when he was helping to get the devolved scottish parliament through Westminster. To try and claim another couple of years on his record to make it look better does a disservice to the man and shows your lack of knowledge of politics.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which part of my post did you disagree with? Megrahi, Arc of Prosperity, telling England to vote Lib-Dem or failure on the independence referendum?

All of that, none of it is fact, it's all your opinion but blasted out in huge boring posts with lots of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, you are just becoming quite boring now.

[MountcastleHibs]

Nice twisting of what I wrote - but inaccurate. My accusation is that the SNP are once again the agents acting on behalf of the Tories. The reason the Sun is telling people to vote SNP is because they think it is the best way to damage Labour in Scotland and therefore stall a Labour recovery nationally. So far, so simple. Not exactly rocket science.

But of course the additional charge is that Salmond specifically said in the Westminster election last year that English people should vote Lib-Dem. Where has that taken us? To a Tory government delivered into No.10 by Lib Dem MPs and subsequently propped up by Lib Dem MPs - those same Lib Dems MPs elected on the kind of votes that Salmond called for. One of a number of examples of catastrophic judgement shown by Salmond, because the government those Lib Dems are propping up is now forcing massive and excessive cuts on Scotland.

No-one in their right mind can argue against tackling the UK's deficit but what is happening now is an ideological attack on public services from the Tories way beyond what is necessary to fix the deficit. It is dressed up as necessary but the truth is that instead of tackling the problem over four years they could be doing it over eight, protecting more jobs and lifeline services. What makes it worse is that their figures are designed to allow them to look at either tax cuts or increased spending in the lead up to the next election in three years time. Those tax cuts or increased spending levels will have been bought and paid for with the jobs, terms and conditions of people who are about to get the chop over the next three years.

And all of this is something that has been hastened and strengthened by Salmond's call to vote Lib Dem.

In terms of what Labour would do differently in the Scottish Parliament about the cuts the truth is that there is little difference between any of the major parties. Which is why the posturing of people on here about what a big difference Salmond and the SNP will make is just cast iron bollock5.

As to your last comment on being run from Westminster, perhaps you could tell that to Gordon Brown who lost the plot both when the Scottish Parliament decided to implement STV for local government elections against his wishes and when Free Personal Care was implemented against his wishes. Only those wearing tartan sunglasses believe this garbage.

To finish, let's get it straight. I'm not talking about the SNP being unable to stop the Tories, I'm talking about the SNP supporting the Tories. They did it in 1979 when their MPs voted to bring the Labour government down and let Thatcher in. They will happily do it again now if they think it will damage Labour and stengthen their own prospects, regardless of the consequences.

I understand your point now, but I completely disagree. I guess that's what politics is about - as a Politics student I realise that!

As for your last statement, I wasn't around in 1979 obviously, but from the history books that I've read, they all seem to suggest that if Labour had maintained power under Callaghan the country would be bankrupt. You seem to be neglecting the so called 'Winter of Discontent' and the fact that inflation was in double figures. To me, as an outsider looking in, it seems there was no choice but to bring down that government, otherwise we would've become a third world country.

You can blame the SNP for bringing down a totally inept government if you like. You can blame them for delivering Thatcher. The fact of the matter is Thatcher still had to win an election.

And this isn't from propaganda from the 'Tartan Underpants Brigade', this is from my own reading and interest.

[One Day Soon]

I understand your point now, but I completely disagree. I guess that's what politics is about - as a Politics student I realise that!

As for your last statement, I wasn't around in 1979 obviously, but from the history books that I've read, they all seem to suggest that if Labour had maintained power under Callaghan the country would be bankrupt. You seem to be neglecting the so called 'Winter of Discontent' and the fact that inflation was in double figures. To me, as an outsider looking in, it seems there was no choice but to bring down that government, otherwise we would've become a third world country.

You can blame the SNP for bringing down a totally inept government if you like. You can blame them for delivering Thatcher. The fact of the matter is Thatcher still had to win an election.

And this isn't from propaganda from the 'Tartan Underpants Brigade', this is from my own reading and interest.

Ok, I think your position is clear though I completely disagree with it. I'm happy to respect a reasoned argument even if I hold a different viewpoint. This is the essential nature of politics, otherwise it would be a very short thread.

How far through your degree are you?

[One Day Soon]

At no point have I said that dewars leadership was negligible, what i said was that like so many of your replies, you have picked a point that is factually incorrect to suit your argument.He was not first minister when he was helping to get the devolved scottish parliament through Westminster. To try and claim another couple of years on his record to make it look better does a disservice to the man and shows your lack of knowledge of politics.

I'm not sure who is the bigger fool. You, or me for trying to debate with you. I seem to remember you were like this on the Nade chant thread too. Given your views I think you'll fit right in as an SNP voter.

[One Day Soon]

All of that, none of it is fact, it's all your opinion but blasted out in huge boring posts with lots of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, you are just becoming quite boring now.

You dispute that Salmond told English electors to vote for the Lib Dems? There you go, a short post. Is that more manageable for you?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not sure who is the bigger fool. You, or me for trying to debate with you. I seem to remember you were like this on the Nade chant thread too. Given your views I think you'll fit right in as an SNP voter.

Whats wrong, not got a proper answer?

[MountcastleHibs]

Ok, I think your position is clear though I completely disagree with it. I'm happy to respect a reasoned argument even if I hold a different viewpoint. This is the essential nature of politics, otherwise it would be a very short thread.

How far through your degree are you?

Just finished my third year!

[bighairyfaeleith]

You dispute that Salmond told English electors to vote for the Lib Dems? There you go, a short post. Is that more manageable for you?

No I don't dispute that, but neither do I care, why should he have said vote labour?

What is so bad about what he said?

here is what he actually said

“A balanced parliament would be the best thing for people across these islands,” the Scottish First Minster said, adding he would not presume to tell English people how to vote.
“But nonetheless I think voting for the objective of denying the Labour or Conservative parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do.”

Not sure how that would count as a failure for his government?

[One Day Soon]

Whats wrong, not got a proper answer?

You're surely kidding? You haven't answered any question and now you want me to answer one of yours. Ok, what is it?

[One Day Soon]

Just finished my third year!

Excellent. The fourth year is the best so if you've enjoyed it so far it should be even better now. More stress and hard work in the final year though. And beer, lots and lots of beer. Where are you studying?

[One Day Soon]

No I don't dispute that, but neither do I care, why should he have said vote labour?

What is so bad about what he said?

here is what he actually said

“A balanced parliament would be the best thing for people across these islands,” the Scottish First Minster said, adding he would not presume to tell English people how to vote.
“But nonetheless I think voting for the objective of denying the Labour or Conservative parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do.”

But you clearly did dispute it because when I listed it as one of the things he had gotten catastrophically wrong you wrote this in response:

"All of that, none of it is fact, it's all your opinion but blasted out in huge boring posts with lots of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, you are just becoming quite boring now."

Now that we have established that it is a fact my argument is that this is one of a series of big issue judgements which he has gotten very badly wrong. All the arguments as to why it was crazy to think that voting for the Lib Dems would be a good idea are already set out in posts above.

[MountcastleHibs]

Excellent. The fourth year is the best so if you've enjoyed it so far it should be even better now. More stress and hard work in the final year though. And beer, lots and lots of beer. Where are you studying?

Haha yeah. Edinburgh Uni for me.

[bighairyfaeleith]

But you clearly did dispute it because when I listed it as one of the things he had gotten catastrophically wrong you wrote this in response:

"All of that, none of it is fact, it's all your opinion but blasted out in huge boring posts with lots of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, you are just becoming quite boring now."

Now that we have established that it is a fact my argument is that this is one of a series of big issue judgements which he has gotten very badly wrong. All the arguments as to why it was crazy to think that voting for the Lib Dems would be a good idea are already set out in posts above.

actually I'm going to revise my post, because it's not fact, if you read what he says

“A balanced parliament would be the best thing for people across these islands,” the Scottish First Minster said, adding he would not presume to tell English people how to vote.
“But nonetheless I think voting for the objective of denying the Labour or Conservative parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do.”

so actually he didn't tell anyone how to vote, you just read it how you wanted to read it. You read it that way because you wanted to try and show him to have poor judgement, the fact that if he had said what you wanted would still not show poor judgement though.

[lucky]

Quality cartoon in tonight Evening news.

On a side note wee Eck managed to bore the STUC conference this morning more than any other speaker this week. Wee Eck spent 20 minutes talking about wind turbines much to the boredom of many delegates. Two of my colleagues fell asleep. Not his best showman performance.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/frankboyle/Frank-Boyle-Cartoon-20042011.6754994.jp

[ancienthibby]

I think you meant most vile, not vilest. Didn't you?

Aye, its such trash that you aren't capable of rebutting a single part of it. Are you?

Galloway's judgement is such that he also saluted the 'indefatigability' of Saddam Hussein. Hussein was the organiser, among other things, of systematised rape camps. I don't think Galloway has good judgement. Do you?

There are hard, hard words alright. You are in the camp of the Tories, doing Tory work. Get over it. Can you?

Let's recap again just in case you feel capable for once of engaging with the debate rather than retreating to the traditional Nationalist rent-a-mob approach.

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

You just don't get it, do you ODiouS,

You are living in the past, the voters are living in the present and the future.

You (being Iain Gray or his manager!?) are living in the past where your claim to anything is in the past and you love to harp on and on and on about YOUR view of history.

Get a grip, man!

The future of Scotland lies light years ahead of what you, Iain Gray, Andy Kerr, Jackie Baillie, Ricky (grilled Bacon by Isabel Fraser) Baker and all the also-rans of the Liebor Party of Westminster in Scotland can offer!!

The LPoWiS is a busted flush.

You are hopelessly trying to defend it.

Get another gig.

[Woody1985]

If you are the judge on credibility then I am very happy to be found wanting.

But back to your serial denial on SNP/Salmond screw ups:

1. Early release of mass murderer Megrahi.
2. Explosion of Arc of Prsoperity economic policy.
3. Disastrous consequences of Salmond advice to vote Lib Dem in England.
4. Spineless failure to pose the question on independence.

That's quite an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to **** in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence. What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected?

Even a Sun reader like yourself should be able to understand that list.

Does it make it painful to sit down after being used so comprehensively as a prophylactic by the Tories and their friends? You know, helping usher them in the door of No.10 one day and then being adopted by the Sun as the home of the Tory tactical vote in Scotland the next?

Still, you will remember the SNP MPs selling Scotland down the river to Thatcher in 1979 by voting to bring down the Labour government so presumably you're getting used to it by now.


1. Whilst I disagreed with his release the same steps were followed as with every other prisoner that's been released under the rules. Labour wanted him released for their dealings with Libya so this is something extremely convenient for them.

2. They started in 2007 and was it not 2009 that the greatest recession for 80-100 years started. Obviously there are cuts no matter who is in charge.

3. Why were they disastrous? Personally I think a combination of the tories and the lib dems having the ability to reign them back on certain things is probably a good thing. Would you rather they asked them to vote Tory? Lets face it, can't be worse than Labour pissing every penny up the wall.

Can you imagine what would happen at this election if the SNP had indicated that the best thing to do is vote for Labour at the general election. They'd be sticking a nail in their own coffin. Labour would be all over it.

4. The other parties set their stall out that it would be voted down if it was even brought forward. If they brought it anyway you'd be on here moaning that they wasted xx thousands on bringing it forward.

[marinello59]

You just don't get it, do you ODiouS,

You are living in the past, the voters are living in the present and the future.

You (being Iain Gray or his manager!?) are living in the past where your claim to anything is in the past and you love to harp on and on and on about YOUR view of history.

Get a grip, man!

The future of Scotland lies light years ahead of what you, Iain Gray, Andy Kerr, Jackie Baillie, Ricky (grilled Bacon by Isabel Fraser) Baker and all the also-rans of the Liebor Party of Westminster in Scotland can offer!!

The LPoWiS is a busted flush.

You are hopelessly trying to defend it.

Get another gig.

Do you actually have any points of substance to make or do you save all your energy for thinking up increasingly unpleasant puns?

[ancienthibby]

Do you actually have any points of substance to make or do you save all your energy for thinking up increasingly unpleasant puns?


If you want to portray yourself as an apologist for ODiouS, that's your choice!:devil:

[ancienthibby]

Do you actually have any points of substance to make or do you save all your energy for thinking up increasingly unpleasant puns?


Boy, were you quick to delete that last post of yours.

Says it all!!

[marinello59]

Boy, were you quick to delete that last post of yours.

Says it all!!

Deleted as a mark of respect for your faith which I had forgotten about when I posted it. I know 99.99% of people here wouldn't have bothered but there you go.

[ancienthibby]

Deleted as a mark of respect for your faith which I had forgotten about when I posted it. I know 99.99% of people here wouldn't have bothered but there you go.

Well, that was kind, though a bit unnecessary!!

I'm old enough, ugly enough and long enough in the tooth to be able to cope with most things!!

You made a kind deference - that will be remembered!:agree:

[sKipper]

Do you actually have any points of substance to make or do you save all your energy for thinking up increasingly unpleasant puns?

Strange how you have not asked the same question to ODS who has made no real points of substance and constantly abuses people :confused:

[marinello59]

Strange how you have not asked the same question to ODS who has made no real points of substance and constantly abuses people :confused:

To be fair to ODS he has made more than a few political observations. Having enjoyed a bruising encounter with him following the general election perhaps I am more used to his style.
As a don't know neither ODS or AH has done much to make their party of choice the one for me. Bighairyfaeleith has at least had me pining for the return of the Monster Raving Loony party. :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

To be fair to ODS he has made more than a few political observations. Having enjoyed a bruising encounter with him following the general election perhaps I am more used to his style.
As a don't know neither ODS or AH has done much to make their party of choice the one for me. Bighairyfaeleith has at least had me pining for the return of the Monster Raving Loony party. :greengrin

http://www.omrlp.com/ :greengrin

[EuanH78]

But you clearly did dispute it because when I listed it as one of the things he had gotten catastrophically wrong you wrote this in response:

"All of that, none of it is fact, it's all your opinion but blasted out in huge boring posts with lots of sarcasm thrown in for good measure, you are just becoming quite boring now."

Now that we have established that it is a fact my argument is that this is one of a series of big issue judgements which he has gotten very badly wrong. All the arguments as to why it was crazy to think that voting for the Lib Dems would be a good idea are already set out in posts above.

Who says he got it catstrophically wrong?

Maybe you do, but from a Nationalist objective. Tory's in Westminster is probably the best thing to promote a Scottish National Party, no?

Anyway it's a moot point because the proper quote is listed above. Labour supporters bitterness aside.

[ancienthibby]

To be fair to ODS he has made more than a few political observations. Having enjoyed a bruising encounter with him following the general election perhaps I am more used to his style.
As a don't know neither ODS or AH has done much to make their party of choice the one for me. Bighairyfaeleith has at least had me pining for the return of the Monster Raving Loony party. :greengrin


And I did not and will not try to do so!!

My support for my political party is in the genes.:wink:

But I would respectfully suggest that the only issue that matters this time round is that of leadership of the country. There is one leader who is head and shoulders above all others and I read this morning that a new poll (all caveats in place) shows a whopping lead for the last party of Government in Scotland.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[marinello59]

http://www.omrlp.com/ :greengrin
:thumbsup:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who says he got it catstrophically wrong?

Maybe you do, but from a Nationalist objective. Tory's in Westminster is probably the best thing to promote a Scottish National Party, no?

Anyway it's a moot point because the proper quote is listed above. Labour supporters bitterness aside.

Exactly, whoever got in to government for the uk was going to be unpopular due to the cuts. The fact that he wanted two of his opposition parties to share the blame shows that actually it was quite a smart move, I'm sure he would have envisaged it being a lib/lab coalition but either way the result still helps the snp as is being shown in the opinion polls right now.

[lucky]

So for political gain Wee Eck was happy to see thousands thrown on the dole in the UK.

Sounds like the Tartan Tories have not changed

[bighairyfaeleith]

So for political gain Wee Eck was happy to see thousands thrown on the dole in the UK.

Sounds like the Tartan Tories have not changed

Not sure how that one figures:confused:

[Beefster]

So for political gain Wee Eck was happy to see thousands thrown on the dole in the UK.

Sounds like the Tartan Tories have not changed

Unemployment was higher when Labour left office than when it took office. Maybe Salmond thought that that wasn't good enough?

[One Day Soon]

Haha yeah. Edinburgh Uni for me.

Excellent Faculty. I hope you have joined the SNP club if that's the way you are leaning - they must still have one at Edinburgh. Student politics can be pretty puerile at times but you make a bunch of friendships and connections that will stand you in good stead if you are political.

[One Day Soon]

actually I'm going to revise my post, because it's not fact, if you read what he says

“A balanced parliament would be the best thing for people across these islands,” the Scottish First Minster said, adding he would not presume to tell English people how to vote.
“But nonetheless I think voting for the objective of denying the Labour or Conservative parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do.”

so actually he didn't tell anyone how to vote, you just read it how you wanted to read it. You read it that way because you wanted to try and show him to have poor judgement, the fact that if he had said what you wanted would still not show poor judgement though.

You do not think it is transparently clear what he was suggesting at the time? How else, other than advising people to vote Lib Dem , do you think his public statement quoted above could be construed? Every paper reporting his remarks at the time led with headlines to the effect of 'Salmond boosts Lib Dems' etc.

If your position is that Salmond did not show appalling judgement by calling for English voters to support the Lib Dems, despite the fact that subsequent events have shown that the Lib Dems cannot be trusted and are helping to implement excessive Tory cuts, then frankly there is nothing more worth debating. I look forward, should the SNP win this election, to your justification of their actions as their pledges are broken while implementing budget cuts and their election prospectus is demonstrated to be bogus because the promises they are making cannot be afforded.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You do not think it is transparently clear what he was suggesting at the time? How else, other than advising people to vote Lib Dem , do you think his public statement quoted above could be construed? Every paper reporting his remarks at the time led with headlines to the effect of 'Salmond boosts Lib Dems' etc.

If your position is that Salmond did not show appalling judgement by calling for English voters to support the Lib Dems, despite the fact that subsequent events have shown that the Lib Dems cannot be trusted and are helping to implement excessive Tory cuts, then frankly there is nothing more worth debating. I look forward, should the SNP win this election, to your justification of their actions as their pledges are broken while implementing budget cuts and their election prospectus is demonstrated to be bogus because the promises they are making cannot be afforded.

you make some frankly embarrassing jumps in your conclusions. The fact is he didn't say vote for the lib dems, he said that voting for a minority government is perfectly ok, which if you want to do that then it is fine.

Lots of people voted lib dem and have felt let down by there decisions, but that's hardly salmonds fault, I voted lib dem, I don't blame salmond.

You say that because of the above you look forward to seeing the snp breaking there promises, I have no idea how you got to that point but I can only conclude it's because you realise your argument smells of pee.

[One Day Soon]

You just don't get it, do you ODiouS,

You are living in the past, the voters are living in the present and the future.

You (being Iain Gray or his manager!?) are living in the past where your claim to anything is in the past and you love to harp on and on and on about YOUR view of history.

Get a grip, man!

The future of Scotland lies light years ahead of what you, Iain Gray, Andy Kerr, Jackie Baillie, Ricky (grilled Bacon by Isabel Fraser) Baker and all the also-rans of the Liebor Party of Westminster in Scotland can offer!!

The LPoWiS is a busted flush.

You are hopelessly trying to defend it.

Get another gig.

You have no idea how much pleasure it gives me to see you serially failing to answer any of the questions posed. If you at least hopelessly tried to defend your party it would be a step forward for you. Hilarious.

With your increasingly trite malformations of the english language (I bet you just LOVED the phrasing 'Tony Bliar'), blanking of any serious discussion and making weirdly venomous statements about the Labour Party I assume you must be regarded as a star turn in your own tartan wall-papered living room.

Brigadoon meets the White Heather Club may be a good recipe for a drunken, saltire wrapped pi5h-up with like minded shortbread tin fanatics. It isn't a good recipe for government.

And just because I never tire of baiting the politically challenged, here are your Janet and John politics for beginners issues to ignore all over again:

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

[One Day Soon]

you make some frankly embarrassing jumps in your conclusions. The fact is he didn't say vote for the lib dems, he said that voting for a minority government is perfectly ok, which if you want to do that then it is fine.

Lots of people voted lib dem and have felt let down by there decisions, but that's hardly salmonds fault, I voted lib dem, I don't blame salmond.

You say that because of the above you look forward to seeing the snp breaking there promises, I have no idea how you got to that point but I can only conclude it's because you realise your argument smells of pee.

You are just embarrassing yourself in attempting to avoid the conclusion that every paper and political commentator came to on what he was saying. And which, by the way, his spin doctors did not rebut in any way.

Just answer this question. Salmond said in the last election that people in England should vote for a minority government. Which way do they vote in order to achieve that, if not Lib Dem?

[steakbake]

You have no idea how much pleasure it gives me to see you serially failing to answer any of the questions posed. If you at least hopelessly tried to defend your party it would be a step forward for you. Hilarious.

With your increasingly trite malformations of the english language (I bet you just LOVED the phrasing 'Tony Bliar'), blanking of any serious discussion and making weirdly venomous statements about the Labour Party I assume you must be regarded as a star turn in your own tartan wall-papered living room.

Brigadoon meets the White Heather Club may be a good recipe for a drunken, saltire wrapped pi5h-up with like minded shortbread tin fanatics. It isn't a good recipe for government.

And just because I never tire of baiting the politically challenged, here are your Janet and John politics for beginners issues to ignore all over again:

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

:rolleyes: You rail against people for their "trite malformations of the English language", which to be fair are at best pretty childish, yet without a hint of irony or awareness of hypocrisy, you come out with some pretty embarrassing turns of phrase yourself.

I suggest you go have a lie down in a darkened room till the election is all over.

[hibsbollah]

Nice to see folk making friends...

[lucky]

Exactly, whoever got in to government for the uk was going to be unpopular due to the cuts. The fact that he wanted two of his opposition parties to share the blame shows that actually it was quite a smart move, I'm sure he would have envisaged it being a lib/lab coalition but either way the result still helps the snp as is being shown in the opinion polls right now.

Its your words that wee eck wanted the Tories to get into power to get the blame for the cuts. So surely it follows he is happy for thousands to suffer for his political gain!

[Woody1985]

You have no idea how much pleasure it gives me to see you serially failing to answer any of the questions posed. If you at least hopelessly tried to defend your party it would be a step forward for you. Hilarious.

With your increasingly trite malformations of the english language (I bet you just LOVED the phrasing 'Tony Bliar'), blanking of any serious discussion and making weirdly venomous statements about the Labour Party I assume you must be regarded as a star turn in your own tartan wall-papered living room.

Brigadoon meets the White Heather Club may be a good recipe for a drunken, saltire wrapped pi5h-up with like minded shortbread tin fanatics. It isn't a good recipe for government.

And just because I never tire of baiting the politically challenged, here are your Janet and John politics for beginners issues to ignore all over again:

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

This sums up exactly what is wrong with politicians or wannabes.

'You are obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote cos you're not as smart as me'.

Even if that's not what you want to portray it comes across like that.

[ancienthibby]

You have no idea how much pleasure it gives me to see you serially failing to answer any of the questions posed. If you at least hopelessly tried to defend your party it would be a step forward for you. Hilarious.

With your increasingly trite malformations of the english language (I bet you just LOVED the phrasing 'Tony Bliar'), blanking of any serious discussion and making weirdly venomous statements about the Labour Party I assume you must be regarded as a star turn in your own tartan wall-papered living room.

Brigadoon meets the White Heather Club may be a good recipe for a drunken, saltire wrapped pi5h-up with like minded shortbread tin fanatics. It isn't a good recipe for government.

And just because I never tire of baiting the politically challenged, here are your Janet and John politics for beginners issues to ignore all over again:

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer, having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands, becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf

Thank you ODiouS, thank you - I just fell about laughing when I read your latest diatribe.

You complain that people (myself included) won't engage in dialogue you, but why would anyone do so when your constant rhetoric is based on 'see you jimmy hats', on 'Brigadoon and the White Heather Club, on 'shortbread tin fanatics'; etc, etc.:na na::na na:

You are a Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland neanderthal, luxuriating in your own overwhelming negativity while your so-called leader (the weegreychickencarcrash) and policies (Rickie 'skewered by Isabel Fraser'; 'I read it in a paper so it must be true') Baker are being systematically rubbished by the electorate (see today's opinion poll!).

Your posts drip with one negative after another - you really need to get a grip.

As the wonderfully eloquent 'bighairyfaeleith' put it: 'your argument smells of pee'.:agree::agree::agree:

The world of current Scottish politics has left you and your party behind, but I have changed my mind and would ask you please continue to post - I have not laughed so much in ages!!

[One Day Soon]

:rolleyes: You rail against people for their "trite malformations of the English language", which to be fair are at best pretty childish, yet without a hint of irony or awareness of hypocrisy, you come out with some pretty embarrassing turns of phrase yourself.

I suggest you go have a lie down in a darkened room till the election is all over.

Steakbake, I do indeed make my own contribution to the lexicon of party political abuse - I do have some self awareness you know. However in among the invective in my posts is a healthy dose of actual politics, issues for debate. I may be right or wrong in my opinions and the issues I challenge people over, but at least I am doing more than just making blanket assertions.

That's a lot more substance than simply repeating ad nauseum phrases like 'Liebour', 'weegreychickencrash' (did I get that one right) and the apparently favoured 'get another gig'.

[One Day Soon]

Unemployment was higher when Labour left office than when it took office. Maybe Salmond thought that that wasn't good enough?

Beefster, that's beneath you.

[One Day Soon]

This sums up exactly what is wrong with politicians or wannabes.

'You are obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote cos you're not as smart as me'.

Even if that's not what you want to portray it comes across like that.


This sums up exactly what is wrong with politicians or wannabes.

'You are obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to express a contrary opinion cos you don't agree with what I think.'

Even if that's not what you want to portray it comes across like that.


See what I did there?

[One Day Soon]

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf

Thank you ODiouS, thank you - I just fell about laughing when I read your latest diatribe.

Always glad to bring a little happiness.

You complain that people (myself included) won't engage in dialogue you, but why would anyone do so when your constant rhetoric is based on 'see you jimmy hats', on 'Brigadoon and the White Heather Club, on 'shortbread tin fanatics'; etc, etc.:na na::na na:

Aww, I thought we were really getting somewhere. Your 'Liebour', my 'White Heather Club' etc. How about if we both drop the name calling? It will be a lot more dull but I bet the neighbours will be happier.

You are a Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland neanderthal, luxuriating in your own overwhelming negativity while your so-called leader (the weegreychickencarcrash) and policies (Rickie 'skewered by Isabel Fraser'; 'I read it in a paper so it must be true') Baker are being systematically rubbished by the electorate (see today's opinion poll!).

Now I know what LPoWiS stood for in one of your earlier posts. I also see from another post of yours that your politics are in your genes. So are mine. That means that we really aren't going to agree on a lot as regards politics, so perhaps best to agree to differ.

Your posts drip with one negative after another - you really need to get a grip.

See above.

As the wonderfully eloquent 'bighairyfaeleith' put it: 'your argument smells of pee'.:agree::agree::agree:

Not your finest moment (or BHFL's)

The world of current Scottish politics has left you and your party behind, but I have changed my mind and would ask you please continue to post - I have not laughed so much in ages!!

On the continuing to post part, I will be happy to oblige. And I'm sure the laughing is good for you, so don't say I don't have your interests at heart.

[One Day Soon]

Nice to see folk making friends...

.....jump right in. But no Ed Balls chat.

[hibsbollah]

.....jump right in. But no Ed Balls chat.

No, you're alright thanks. Im too busy trying to decide who gets my vote.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Its your words that wee eck wanted the Tories to get into power to get the blame for the cuts. So surely it follows he is happy for thousands to suffer for his political gain!

No matter who won people where going to be made redundant, to try and blame salmond is frankly :faf:

[bighairyfaeleith]

You are just embarrassing yourself in attempting to avoid the conclusion that every paper and political commentator came to on what he was saying. And which, by the way, his spin doctors did not rebut in any way.

Just answer this question. Salmond said in the last election that people in England should vote for a minority government. Which way do they vote in order to achieve that, if not Lib Dem?

Labour??

[bighairyfaeleith]

Steakbake, I do indeed make my own contribution to the lexicon of party political abuse - I do have some self awareness you know. However in among the invective in my posts is a healthy dose of actual politics, issues for debate. I may be right or wrong in my opinions and the issues I challenge people over, but at least I am doing more than just making blanket assertions.

That's a lot more substance than simply repeating ad nauseum phrases like 'Liebour', 'weegreychickencrash' (did I get that one right) and the apparently favoured 'get another gig'.

I'm still googling some of your words, I'll post later once I have worked what you have said

[lucky]

No matter who won people where going to be made redundant, to try and blame salmond is frankly :faf:

If Labour had won then yes there would have been cuts but not to the extent we have seen. The deficit was to cut over 8 years not 4.

But do you read your own posts? it was you that suggested the Wee Eck wanted English voters not to vote Labour then he could make political gain.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You have no idea how much pleasure it gives me to see you serially failing to answer any of the questions posed. If you at least hopelessly tried to defend your party it would be a step forward for you. Hilarious.

With your increasingly trite malformations of the english language (I bet you just LOVED the phrasing 'Tony Bliar'), blanking of any serious discussion and making weirdly venomous statements about the Labour Party I assume you must be regarded as a star turn in your own tartan wall-papered living room.

Brigadoon meets the White Heather Club may be a good recipe for a drunken, saltire wrapped pi5h-up with like minded shortbread tin fanatics. It isn't a good recipe for government.

And just because I never tire of baiting the politically challenged, here are your Janet and John politics for beginners issues to ignore all over again:

It is an astonishing list of achievements for just one term in office. Setting free Scotland's greatest mass murderer,

Yes, that is true - i decision i didnt agree with personally - but one made for commendable reasons - and also one supported publically by a former Labour Minster (and Edinburgh North & Leith MSP) Malcolm Chisholm, as well as other Labour MSP privately.


having your entire economic policy turn to 5hit in your hands,

I dont follow? What has turned to sh&t? In Scotland we cant really have an economic policy, as economics relies on levers that we do not possess - we have a resource allocation strategy, and as we (literally are not allowed to) spend more than we get, i dont get your point?

becoming an accessory to the propping up of the Tory govt that is inflicting the cuts on Scotland

This is utter nonsense - and i have heard a UK civil servant say that make no mistake, 90% of these cuts were in place ready to go long before the Tories came along - and that leaves aside the point than it is only your opinion that the cuts are wrong, others, such as the IMF, beleive them to be necessary.

and being the first Nationalist government in the history of Scotland but then failing to even put the question on independence.

Two points on this - firstly, they coudlnt - it was made explicitly clear that it would be voted down. Secondly, in those 4 years, the three Unionist parties have picked-up the baton and taken forward the case for independence in response to the SNP winning last time around - so much so that the prinicple of fiscal autonomy has been conceded by Calman - a far more significant action than many realise IMO. I also find it funny that opponents who lambast the SNP for being 'obsessed' with independence then moan when they stope, well, being obsessed with it.

What we ask, what on earth can they manage for an encore if re-elected? It will be difficult to top failing to put an independence saltire on the Scottish Parliament, but managing somehow to put saltires on the tarmac for Megrahi at Tripoli airport.

Your opinion, but another term of competent (if not spectacular) government, based on ambition for the future, and continued reigning-in of the Labour / Local Authority mindset of constantly putting-up taxes (and therefore stifling any pretension to innovation in service delivery), might be a good start.

We will see in a few weeks what the people of Scotland vote for.

[MountcastleHibs]

If Labour had won then yes there would have been cuts but not to the extent we have seen. The deficit was to cut over 8 years not 4.

But do you read your own posts? it was you that suggested the Wee Eck wanted English voters not to vote Labour then he could make political gain.

The cuts Darling offered were going to be 'more severe than cuts made under Thatcher' (his words not mine) because he was going to build the deficit up to an even higher level for 8 months, then make cuts (and we still don't know where because he never outlined that).

Ed Miliband recognised as soon as he became leader that Labour had it wrong in the election, and that cuts needed to be made earlier. His argument was over what to cut. So are you saying Ed Miliband is wrong?

[bighairyfaeleith]

If Labour had won then yes there would have been cuts but not to the extent we have seen. The deficit was to cut over 8 years not 4.

But do you read your own posts? it was you that suggested the Wee Eck wanted English voters not to vote Labour then he could make political gain.

Sorry can you show me where I said that?

[steakbake]

Steakbake, I do indeed make my own contribution to the lexicon of party political abuse - I do have some self awareness you know. However in among the invective in my posts is a healthy dose of actual politics, issues for debate. I may be right or wrong in my opinions and the issues I challenge people over, but at least I am doing more than just making blanket assertions.

That's a lot more substance than simply repeating ad nauseum phrases like 'Liebour', 'weegreychickencrash' (did I get that one right) and the apparently favoured 'get another gig'.

Fair enough, fella. I was just concerned you were about to blow a gasket, that's all. :greengrin

[Levenhibee]

The SNP will just continue emptying prisons and endangering the public's safety. They have taken "soft on crime" to new levels. They will also just continue blaming the English for everything, with the "darling of hibs.net", Nicola Sturgeon being particularly bad for that.

Scottish politics is pretty much like Scottish football............embarrassing

I think you'll find the Prisons are about full to overflowing. So saying the SNP will continue emptying prisons is a bit of a silly statement considering the Scottish prison population is on an upward trend.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-04334.pdf
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/01104348/1


"Soft on crime" a statement that has often been quoted in the English papers towards Labour and Tory Governments over the years and especially towards Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. So to say the SNP has taken "Soft on crime" to new levels is more than just a little missleading.

[Sir David Gray]

So you think the british government should have disregarded our legal setup and made the decision for us:rolleyes:

I disagree that certain parts of the uk shouldn't get certain priviliges, it's actually one of the things that works well in the uk now we have devolved power. The problem with the EU is they are trying to do one size fits all policies and it doesn't work, in the UK we are now doing the opposite and I think it works well.

There is no reason why countries can't work together as the UK but keep there independence on local issues like for example, tuition fees, the NHS. Surely we are enlightened enough society that we can get our heads round the idea that not every part of the UK has the same requirements and issues.

Also, for the record, all the people stating it as fact that megrahi shoudn't have been released, many people in this country disagree and it was legally the correct decision so get over it. The fact that he's not dead yet is a pretty poor line that I'd expect from a jambo but surely we can rise above that sort of nonsense?

What I'm saying is, a decision of that magnitude should have been made by a proper national government and since the SNP administration in Holyrood was not, and is not, a proper government, I don't believe that they should have been left to decide the fate of the man convicted of the worst atrocity in the living memory of the UK's history.

As for al-Megrahi not being dead yet, I haven't even mentioned that in this thread as being a reason for my opposition to him being freed. I was, and still am, opposed to his release because he was convicted of the murder of 270 people and thus being the worst mass murderer in the modern history of the United Kingdom.

For that reason alone, he should not have been released under any circumstances, unless new evidence came to light that pointed towards his innocence.

The fact that he is still alive almost two years after being freed on the grounds that he only had three months left to live merely adds salt to the wounds.

In terms of devolution, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet patients in England are eligible for cancer treatments that patients in Scotland cannot receive? By the same token, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't pay for prescriptions and yet citizens in England do need to pay? In fact the charges in England actually increased (to £7.40) on the same day that charges in Scotland were abolished.

I think that is totally unfair. For as long as every citizen in the UK is paying towards the NHS, I believe that every citizen in the UK should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as far as their healthcare on the NHS is concerned.

I think the issue of tuition fees is slightly different but the fact remains that the Scottish Parliament receives funding from Westminster, which is provided by taxpayers from across the UK, and I am doubtful as to whether we could afford to abolish tuition fees at university without the funding from Westminster.

In fact, taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are helping to fund the free tuition for Scottish universities, and yet if their children come up to Scotland to study at university, they'll be required to pay thousands of pounds towards tuition fees that their parents are helping to abolish for students living in Scotland.

That cannot be right as far as I'm concerned.

[Beefster]

What I'm saying is, a decision of that magnitude should have been made by a proper national government and since the SNP administration in Holyrood was not, and is not, a proper government, I don't believe that they should have been left to decide the fate of the man convicted of the worst atrocity in the living memory of the UK's history.

As for al-Megrahi not being dead yet, I haven't even mentioned that in this thread as being a reason for my opposition to him being freed. I was, and still am, opposed to his release because he was convicted of the murder of 270 people and thus being the worst mass murderer in the modern history of the United Kingdom.

For that reason alone, he should not have been released under any circumstances, unless new evidence came to light that pointed towards his innocence.

The fact that he is still alive almost two years after being freed on the grounds that he only had three months left to live merely adds salt to the wounds.

In terms of devolution, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet patients in England are eligible for cancer treatments that patients in Scotland cannot receive? By the same token, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't pay for prescriptions and yet citizens in England do need to pay? In fact the charges in England actually increased (to £7.40) on the same day that charges in Scotland were abolished.

I think that is totally unfair. For as long as every citizen in the UK is paying towards the NHS, I believe that every citizen in the UK should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as far as their healthcare on the NHS is concerned.

I think the issue of tuition fees is slightly different but the fact remains that the Scottish Parliament receives funding from Westminster, which is provided by taxpayers from across the UK, and I am doubtful as to whether we could afford to abolish tuition fees at university without the funding from Westminster.

In fact, taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are helping to fund the free tuition for Scottish universities, and yet if their children come up to Scotland to study at university, they'll be required to pay thousands of pounds towards tuition fees that their parents are helping to abolish for students living in Scotland.

That cannot be right as far as I'm concerned.

There is plenty of evidence that al-Mehgrahi was subject to a miscarriage of justice and there is a fair chance that he would have won the appeal, if it had gone ahead. Try and get hold of the Private Eye special on Lockerbie.

The rest of your post on 'how unfair everything is' makes you sound like you are hankering for a socialist paradise where everyone is treated the same. Different countries choose how to spend the resources they have. If you don't agree with their priorities, you can vote for UKIP in May.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What I'm saying is, a decision of that magnitude should have been made by a proper national government and since the SNP administration in Holyrood was not, and is not, a proper government, I don't believe that they should have been left to decide the fate of the man convicted of the worst atrocity in the living memory of the UK's history.

As for al-Megrahi not being dead yet, I haven't even mentioned that in this thread as being a reason for my opposition to him being freed. I was, and still am, opposed to his release because he was convicted of the murder of 270 people and thus being the worst mass murderer in the modern history of the United Kingdom.

For that reason alone, he should not have been released under any circumstances, unless new evidence came to light that pointed towards his innocence.

The fact that he is still alive almost two years after being freed on the grounds that he only had three months left to live merely adds salt to the wounds.

In terms of devolution, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet patients in England are eligible for cancer treatments that patients in Scotland cannot receive? By the same token, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't pay for prescriptions and yet citizens in England do need to pay? In fact the charges in England actually increased (to £7.40) on the same day that charges in Scotland were abolished.

I think that is totally unfair. For as long as every citizen in the UK is paying towards the NHS, I believe that every citizen in the UK should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as far as their healthcare on the NHS is concerned.

I think the issue of tuition fees is slightly different but the fact remains that the Scottish Parliament receives funding from Westminster, which is provided by taxpayers from across the UK, and I am doubtful as to whether we could afford to abolish tuition fees at university without the funding from Westminster.

In fact, taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are helping to fund the free tuition for Scottish universities, and yet if their children come up to Scotland to study at university, they'll be required to pay thousands of pounds towards tuition fees that their parents are helping to abolish for students living in Scotland.

That cannot be right as far as I'm concerned.

While I understand your viewpoint I pretty much disagree with it all.

On megrahi, it was right for the scottish government to handle an issue which concerned a scottish prisoner governed by scottish law. I personally feel they also made the right decision.

I wasnt suggesting you had said it was wrong he wasn't dead yet, that was a more general comment to some other folks on here, however I for one am glad that our country was able to show compassion to a dying man, compassion which he (supposedly) never showed to the victims of lockerbie, I like the fact we are better people than terrorists.

In regards to the fairness issues you mentioned, when all decisions where made on london we continually lost out because what suited the majority did not suit us in the north. We can now make decisions which suit us, and it is overall working well for us, if london wants to make **** decisions for england then thats there problem, not ours.

We pay our taxes and are allocated our money by london, we shouldn't be apologising for how we choose to spend it.

[ballengeich]

In terms of devolution, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet patients in England are eligible for cancer treatments that patients in Scotland cannot receive? By the same token, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't pay for prescriptions and yet citizens in England do need to pay? In fact the charges in England actually increased (to £7.40) on the same day that charges in Scotland were abolished.

I think that is totally unfair. For as long as every citizen in the UK is paying towards the NHS, I believe that every citizen in the UK should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as far as their healthcare on the NHS is concerned.

I think the issue of tuition fees is slightly different but the fact remains that the Scottish Parliament receives funding from Westminster, which is provided by taxpayers from across the UK, and I am doubtful as to whether we could afford to abolish tuition fees at university without the funding from Westminster.

In fact, taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are helping to fund the free tuition for Scottish universities, and yet if their children come up to Scotland to study at university, they'll be required to pay thousands of pounds towards tuition fees that their parents are helping to abolish for students living in Scotland.

That cannot be right as far as I'm concerned.

The differences in availability of cancer drugs and free prescriptions show the dilemma which legislators have to confront when there are not infinite resources for medical treatment. The whole idea of devolution is that different parts of a country can set up legislation which they believe to suit their own region or nation. The alternative is that everything is decided by a small group of bureaucrats in the metropolitan centre. Under this alternative, local initative is forbidden and experimentation on a small scale becomes impossible.

Inequality between areas may occur, but we have to hope that administrators in different areas will look at what is going on in other places and attempt to adapte their own practices to use the best of what has been tried elsewhere. I'd rather have what is called a post-code lottery than rely on a centralised decision-making system. If everyone always has to have the same services how can we try new things on a small scale to see whether they work?

[CropleyWasGod]

What I'm saying is, a decision of that magnitude should have been made by a proper national government and since the SNP administration in Holyrood was not, and is not, a proper government, I don't believe that they should have been left to decide the fate of the man convicted of the worst atrocity in the living memory of the UK's history.

As for al-Megrahi not being dead yet, I haven't even mentioned that in this thread as being a reason for my opposition to him being freed. I was, and still am, opposed to his release because he was convicted of the murder of 270 people and thus being the worst mass murderer in the modern history of the United Kingdom.

For that reason alone, he should not have been released under any circumstances, unless new evidence came to light that pointed towards his innocence.

The fact that he is still alive almost two years after being freed on the grounds that he only had three months left to live merely adds salt to the wounds.

In terms of devolution, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet patients in England are eligible for cancer treatments that patients in Scotland cannot receive? By the same token, how can it be fair that every working person in the UK contributes towards the NHS and yet citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't pay for prescriptions and yet citizens in England do need to pay? In fact the charges in England actually increased (to £7.40) on the same day that charges in Scotland were abolished.

I think that is totally unfair. For as long as every citizen in the UK is paying towards the NHS, I believe that every citizen in the UK should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as far as their healthcare on the NHS is concerned.

I think the issue of tuition fees is slightly different but the fact remains that the Scottish Parliament receives funding from Westminster, which is provided by taxpayers from across the UK, and I am doubtful as to whether we could afford to abolish tuition fees at university without the funding from Westminster.

In fact, taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are helping to fund the free tuition for Scottish universities, and yet if their children come up to Scotland to study at university, they'll be required to pay thousands of pounds towards tuition fees that their parents are helping to abolish for students living in Scotland.

That cannot be right as far as I'm concerned.

Are you aware that Scotland contributes more to the UK economy than it receives? I believe that it's one of only 3 regions in the UK that does so. In other words, Scotland is actually subsidising those regions that are "loss making".

Justification in itself for it to do what IT wants with ITS money.


On the Megrahi issue, are you also aware that, had Megrahi been in prison in England, the same scenario would have taken place? The law regarding early release of prisoners on compassionate grounds is almost exactly the same. (I give you Ronnie Biggs as an example). Application for release... followed up by medical evidence.... followed up by the Home Secretary granting the release.

[Sir David Gray]

There is plenty of evidence that al-Mehgrahi was subject to a miscarriage of justice and there is a fair chance that he would have won the appeal, if it had gone ahead. Try and get hold of the Private Eye special on Lockerbie.

The rest of your post on 'how unfair everything is' makes you sound like you are hankering for a socialist paradise where everyone is treated the same. Different countries choose how to spend the resources they have. If you don't agree with their priorities, you can vote for UKIP in May.

I've been called a lot of things by a lot of people on the Holy Ground forum over the years - however a socialist isn't one of them. :greengrin

I just think that whilst the UK is one country and every taxpayer in the UK is paying towards the NHS, everyone should be given the same opportunities as far as their healthcare is concerned. That isn't happening just now as far as the NHS is concerned and I don't agree with it.

As for al-Megrahi. I'm not commenting on whether or not there could have been a miscarriage of justice in his original trial as I simply don't know if that's correct or not. The fact is, he had a trial and he was found guilty of carrying out the Lockerbie bombing. If there was new evidence to suggest that he was in fact innocent then there should have been a re-trial. If he was eventually acquitted of all charges then he should have been released. I would have had no problems with that as I would not want to see an innocent man in jail for a crime that he did not commit.

We didn't even get as far as a re-trial and he was just released because he had terminal cancer. He was released, despite the fact that he is still considered to be responsible for carrying out the Lockerbie bombing and therefore responsible for the murder of 270 people. It's something that not even Kenny MacAskill is attempting to argue with.

As far as I'm considered, that is not correct and I will never agree with his release under those terms.


While I understand your viewpoint I pretty much disagree with it all.

On megrahi, it was right for the scottish government to handle an issue which concerned a scottish prisoner governed by scottish law. I personally feel they also made the right decision.

I wasnt suggesting you had said it was wrong he wasn't dead yet, that was a more general comment to some other folks on here, however I for one am glad that our country was able to show compassion to a dying man, compassion which he (supposedly) never showed to the victims of lockerbie, I like the fact we are better people than terrorists.

In regards to the fairness issues you mentioned, when all decisions where made on london we continually lost out because what suited the majority did not suit us in the north. We can now make decisions which suit us, and it is overall working well for us, if london wants to make **** decisions for england then thats there problem, not ours.

We pay our taxes and are allocated our money by london, we shouldn't be apologising for how we choose to spend it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the al-Megrahi issue.

In terms of the fairness of devolution, I can see where you're coming from but every UK taxpayer pays their taxes to HMRC, which is a UK body, not a Scottish body, an English body, a Welsh body or a Northern Irish body. I just feel that if you're going to pay taxes towards a UK-wide service (the NHS) then everyone should receive the same benefits that that service provides.


The differences in availability of cancer drugs and free prescriptions show the dilemma which legislators have to confront when there are not infinite resources for medical treatment. The whole idea of devolution is that different parts of a country can set up legislation which they believe to suit their own region or nation. The alternative is that everything is decided by a small group of bureaucrats in the metropolitan centre. Under this alternative, local initative is forbidden and experimentation on a small scale becomes impossible.

Inequality between areas may occur, but we have to hope that administrators in different areas will look at what is going on in other places and attempt to adapte their own practices to use the best of what has been tried elsewhere. I'd rather have what is called a post-code lottery than rely on a centralised decision-making system. If everyone always has to have the same services how can we try new things on a small scale to see whether they work?

I can't agree or disagree with most of what you have written because it's largely your opinion, however is the bit you have said at the bottom regarding trying new things on a small scale to see whether they work, not a bit like what happened in the 80's with the Poll Tax, which was introduced in Scotland before being rolled out to other areas of the UK?

However, devolution in Scotland has been hailed as a great success by the Calman Commission, so who am I to argue with the experts?


Are you aware that Scotland contributes more to the UK economy than it receives? I believe that it's one of only 3 regions in the UK that does so. In other words, Scotland is actually subsidising those regions that are "loss making".

Justification in itself for it to do what IT wants with ITS money.


On the Megrahi issue, are you also aware that, had Megrahi been in prison in England, the same scenario would have taken place? The law regarding early release of prisoners on compassionate grounds is almost exactly the same. (I give you Ronnie Biggs as an example). Application for release... followed up by medical evidence.... followed up by the Home Secretary granting the release.

Whether Scotland contributes more money than it receives is largely irrelevant to my argument. I believe that with things like the NHS, there shouldn't be a difference between what privileges English patients are entitled to and what Scottish patients are entitled to, when we all pay into the same service.

As for the al-Megrahi point, I'm not trying to suggest that the British government would have come to a different decision, had they been in charge of the case. My point was that a decision of that magnitude should, in my opinion, have been made by a proper national government. If the Labour government in Westminster had also released him on compassionate grounds then I wouldn't have agreed with it but I would have accepted it more.

My understanding is that the compassionate release is there as an option. It is not set in stone that every prisoner who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness automatically receives early release on compassionate grounds. I'm willing to accept that it's appropriate to release a lot of people early, if it's been deemed that they have a terminal illness but I don't believe that should apply to the man convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil.

Perhaps it's just me but I believe people like that should be in prison until the day they die.

[CropleyWasGod]

Whether Scotland contributes more money than it receives is largely irrelevant to my argument. I believe that with things like the NHS, there shouldn't be a difference between what privileges English patients are entitled to and what Scottish patients are entitled to, when we all pay into the same service.

.[/QUOTE]

There are differences between all regions in England, and in Scotland, in the services offered by the NHS. That's all about the money each has, and the priorities they set for spending. It's not just England v Scotland.

[ballengeich]

I can't agree or disagree with most of what you have written because it's largely your opinion, however is the bit you have said at the bottom regarding trying new things on a small scale to see whether they work, not a bit like what happened in the 80's with the Poll Tax, which was introduced in Scotland before being rolled out to other areas of the UK?



I advocate decision making at a local level, subject to maintenance of minimum national standards. The Poll Tax was a decision by the government in London which applied only to Scotland and disregarded Scottish opinion so does not refute my view that areas of a country should be able to experiment.

[One Day Soon]

Are you aware that Scotland contributes more to the UK economy than it receives? I believe that it's one of only 3 regions in the UK that does so. In other words, Scotland is actually subsidising those regions that are "loss making".

Justification in itself for it to do what IT wants with ITS money.


On the Megrahi issue, are you also aware that, had Megrahi been in prison in England, the same scenario would have taken place? The law regarding early release of prisoners on compassionate grounds is almost exactly the same. (I give you Ronnie Biggs as an example). Application for release... followed up by medical evidence.... followed up by the Home Secretary granting the release.

What is your evidence for this? I know it has been one of the greatest areas of contention between Unionists and Nationalists over decades so I'm wondering what your source is.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is your evidence for this? I know it has been one of the greatest areas of contention between Unionists and Nationalists over decades so I'm wondering what your source is.

It's often referred to, and is presumably from the Red Book.

I am not sure that it has been a source of contention over the years. That is why the economic argument over independence is not really entered into by the Unionist parties, as they know the facts.

Even the Tories, in the run up to the 97 General Election, conceded that, in the 18 years of their rule, Scotland had paid in £27bn more than they had taken in.

[da-robster]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Iain-Gray-under-fire-after.6756937.jp?articlepage=1

[bighairyfaeleith]

up to the snp to lose this one now.

[hibsbollah]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Iain-Gray-under-fire-after.6756937.jp?articlepage=1

The sos's claim of disquiet amongst Grays colleagues is clearly fatuous...the slaverings of jowly yam fud george fowlkes are irrelevant to the election. The polls look worrying for labour though...its a big swing in just two weeks of campaigning.

[hibsbollah]

Aiden Smith described Annabelle Goldie (in an otherwise respectful and semi-affectionate piece in the SoS today) as 'chic murray in a frock'. Great stuff.

[One Day Soon]

Aiden Smith described Annabelle Goldie (in an otherwise respectful and semi-affectionate piece in the SoS today) as 'chic murray in a frock'. Great stuff.


That's actually pretty good - both funny and disturbingly accurate.

[One Day Soon]

It's often referred to, and is presumably from the Red Book.

I am not sure that it has been a source of contention over the years. That is why the economic argument over independence is not really entered into by the Unionist parties, as they know the facts.

Even the Tories, in the run up to the 97 General Election, conceded that, in the 18 years of their rule, Scotland had paid in £27bn more than they had taken in.

That's not good enough Cropley. Often referred to by who? We are talking here about something fundamental to the debate on status quo versus independence. I'm aware that pro Nationalists assert that Scotland pays in more than it receives but then they would say that. A Unionist can just as easily claim that Scotland gets more than it pays in. If neither claim is actually evidenced then they are just hot air. So if you are making a claim of that sort you need to be able to back it up.

The economic argument absolutely is entered into by anti independence parties. To my knowledge it has been a core part of every election since 1992. This one appears to be an exception.

Do you have a source or evidence for your claim on the Tories in the 97 election?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Aiden Smith described Annabelle Goldie (in an otherwise respectful and semi-affectionate piece in the SoS today) as 'chic murray in a frock'. Great stuff.

Would you though?

[bighairyfaeleith]

That's not good enough Cropley. Often referred to by who? We are talking here about something fundamental to the debate on status quo versus independence. I'm aware that pro Nationalists assert that Scotland pays in more than it receives but then they would say that. A Unionist can just as easily claim that Scotland gets more than it pays in. If neither claim is actually evidenced then they are just hot air. So if you are making a claim of that sort you need to be able to back it up.

The economic argument absolutely is entered into by anti independence parties. To my knowledge it has been a core part of every election since 1992. This one appears to be an exception.

Do you have a source or evidence for your claim on the Tories in the 97 election?

:faf: Sorry sir

[One Day Soon]

The sos's claim of disquiet amongst Grays colleagues is clearly fatuous...the slaverings of jowly yam fud george fowlkes are irrelevant to the election. The polls look worrying for labour though...its a big swing in just two weeks of campaigning.

Indeed it is a big swing. Surely though SoS weren't seriously describing Foulkes as a senior Labour figure? That's a bit like claiming Miss Piggy is a supermodel.

[hibsbollah]

Would you though?

dont be revolting.

Chic murray's deid :-)

[One Day Soon]

:faf: Sorry sir

a) Who let you out of the nursery?

and

b) Please take your wibbling to a poster who is interested.

[hibsbollah]

Surely though SoS weren't seriously describing Foulkes as a senior Labour figure? .

To the letter.

[bighairyfaeleith]

dont be revolting.

Chic murray's deid :-)

:)

[bighairyfaeleith]

a) Who let you out of the nursery?

and

b) Please take your wibbling to a poster who is interested.

C) nah this is too much fun.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

To the letter.

That's just ludicrous. The Scotsman group really is must be struggling.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That's just ludicrous. The Scotsman group really is must be struggling.

Why, foulkes is the perfect example of everything that is bad with labour. Well, you run him close ofcourse!

[CropleyWasGod]

:faf: Sorry sir

That was exactly my reaction. :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

That's not good enough Cropley. Often referred to by who? We are talking here about something fundamental to the debate on status quo versus independence. I'm aware that pro Nationalists assert that Scotland pays in more than it receives but then they would say that. A Unionist can just as easily claim that Scotland gets more than it pays in. If neither claim is actually evidenced then they are just hot air. So if you are making a claim of that sort you need to be able to back it up.

The economic argument absolutely is entered into by anti independence parties. To my knowledge it has been a core part of every election since 1992. This one appears to be an exception.

Do you have a source or evidence for your claim on the Tories in the 97 election?

I understand that it's in the Red Book.

As far as this election is concerned, why isn't the economic debate being entered into by the unionist parties? I would have thought it fair game if they thought it would help their case. Maybe, though, it doesnt.

As far as the Tories claim is concerned, I recall that it was an answer to a Parliamentary question at the time. By whom, I can't recall.... but it was well publicised at the time.

[lucky]

It's often referred to, and is presumably from the Red Book.

I am not sure that it has been a source of contention over the years. That is why the economic argument over independence is not really entered into by the Unionist parties, as they know the facts.

Even the Tories, in the run up to the 97 General Election, conceded that, in the 18 years of their rule, Scotland had paid in £27bn more than they had taken in.

I have never heard the Nats claim that Scotland got less out of the union than it puts in. Generally the argument has always been that the Nats believe Scotland could survive on its own. Its laughable to suggest that Scotland loses out being part of the UK.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have never heard the Nats claim that Scotland got less out of the union than it puts in. Generally the argument has always been that the Nats believe Scotland could survive on its own. Its laughable to suggest that Scotland loses out being part of the UK.

got any facts to back that up?:devil:

[One Day Soon]

Why, foulkes is the perfect example of everything that is bad with labour. Well, you run him close ofcourse!

Please take your wibbling to a poster who is interested.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Please take your wibbling to a poster who is interested.

Aaw are you in the huff?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[sKipper]

ODS won't be pleased. It seems Labour are to ditch the policies and spend the next week and a half going personal on Alex Salmond.

The negativity will be ramped up to even higher levels than normal from them.

Seems a strange strategy. Emphasising the differences between Gray and Salmond wouldn't quite be the way I would be going about it :greengrin

[marinello59]

ODS won't be pleased. It seems Labour are to ditch the policies and spend the next week and a half going personal on Alex Salmond.

The negativity will be ramped up to even higher levels than normal from them.

Seems a strange strategy. Emphasising the differences between Gray and Salmond wouldn't quite be the way I would be going about it :greengrin

Complete and utter madness. Gray may well lose his seat, never mind the election.

[One Day Soon]

I understand that it's in the Red Book.

As far as this election is concerned, why isn't the economic debate being entered into by the unionist parties? I would have thought it fair game if they thought it would help their case. Maybe, though, it doesnt.

As far as the Tories claim is concerned, I recall that it was an answer to a Parliamentary question at the time. By whom, I can't recall.... but it was well publicised at the time.

I don't think it is in the Red Book but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.

I don't know why it hasn't been pursued so far - perhaps they feel it turns off voters or that voters want to hear them talking about things which the Scottish Government currently controls?

As regards the Tory thing, you still haven't shown anything to back up your claim.

Everyone knows that Scotland contributes less to the UK economy than it receives.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think it is in the Red Book but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.

I don't know why it hasn't been purused so far - perhaps they feel it turns off voters or that voters want to hear them talking about things which the Scottish Government currently controls?

As regards the Tory thing, you still haven't shown anything to back up your claim.

Everyone knows that Scotland contributes less to the UK economy than it receives.

I'll turn that one back on you. I certainly don't know, and I would be surprised if I was the only one. Can you back that up?

[One Day Soon]

Aaw are you in the huff?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

Dull

[One Day Soon]

I'll turn that one back on you. I certainly don't know, and I would be surprised if I was the only one. Can you back that up?

All I did was take your original sentence and change it to make word for word exactly the opposite claim to yours.

This is my point. Anyone can post an assertion, but if you can't back it up with some evidence then it is meaningless.

Now all I need to say is "I think it's in the Red Book, or the GERS figures or the Economist did a piece."

You may be right in your original claim (though I doubt it), but without something to back these things up anyone can just claim anything.

And I wasn't being patronising in my earlier post when I wrote "That's not good enough", I was simply pointing out that you hadn't backed up what you wrote.

[JeMeSouviens]

On Scotland's income vs expenditure:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/10

2008-09, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £10.5 billion (9.1 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £9.4 billion (8.0 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a surplus of £1.2 billion (0.9 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

[CropleyWasGod]

On Scotland's income vs expenditure:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/10

2008-09, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £10.5 billion (9.1 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £9.4 billion (8.0 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a surplus of £1.2 billion (0.9 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

Thank you. I was going to research it, but CBA.

Now let's kick off the discussion on whether the oil revenue SHOULD be counted.

Eck says "aye", Bella says "naw".

[bighairyfaeleith]

Thank you. I was going to research it, but CBA.

Now let's kick off the discussion on whether the oil revenue SHOULD be counted.

Eck says "aye", Bella says "naw".

I think whats more important going forward is what are the projections for north sea revenue, as I can only see them dropping and what is going to replace this revenue.

Thats the argument the nats will have to make convincingly if they ever want my independence vote.

Also, be interesting to know how the other parts of the UK perform in a similar sense, ok we could in theory lose 10 billion a year(with no oil) or break even with oil, but how does that compare to england or wales?

[bighairyfaeleith]

All I did was take your original sentence and change it to make word for word exactly the opposite claim to yours.

This is my point. Anyone can post an assertion, but if you can't back it up with some evidence then it is meaningless.

Now all I need to say is "I think it's in the Red Book, or the GERS figures or the Economist did a piece."

You may be right in your original claim (though I doubt it), but without something to back these things up anyone can just claim anything.

And I wasn't being patronising in my earlier post when I wrote "That's not good enough", I was simply pointing out that you hadn't backed up what you wrote.

yeah you where:greengrin

[Beefster]

I think whats more important going forward is what are the projections for north sea revenue, as I can only see them dropping and what is going to replace this revenue.

Thats the argument the nats will have to make convincingly if they ever want my independence vote.

Also, be interesting to know how the other parts of the UK perform in a similar sense, ok we could in theory lose 10 billion a year(with no oil) or break even with oil, but how does that compare to england or wales?

I'm sure I read somewhere that the oil and the South East basically subsidised everywhere else. The South East, in particular, is somewhere the nation as a whole would be ****ed without.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the oil and the South East basically subsidised everywhere else. The South East, in particular, is somewhere the nation as a whole would be ****ed without.

Which is probably the same kind of place where I read about the 3 regions of the UK subsidising everyone else. ie Scotland, the South East and 1 other.

Makes sense.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I don't think it is in the Red Book but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.

I don't know why it hasn't been pursued so far - perhaps they feel it turns off voters or that voters want to hear them talking about things which the Scottish Government currently controls?

As regards the Tory thing, you still haven't shown anything to back up your claim.

Everyone knows that Scotland contributes less to the UK economy than it receives.

So what? The whole of the UK spends far more than it earns - a deficit of more than £150 billion in each of the last two completed tax years.

It's weird how the alleged Scottish deficit is such a big issue for Labour, but the far bigger UK deficit isn't.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Thank you. I was going to research it, but CBA.

Now let's kick off the discussion on whether the oil revenue SHOULD be counted.

Eck says "aye", Bella says "naw".

Even the bigger figure (ie not counting North Sea oil as Scottish) means that Scotland is running a smaller deficit than the whole of the UK. So what exactly is Labour's point?

[hibsbollah]

Complete and utter madness. Gray may well lose his seat

...And let in the nauseating dave berry instead. If Gray loses his seat it could be a blessing in disguise for labour nationally, but it would be grim for east lothian.

[lucky]

Ian Gray will win with a increased majority according to the local canvas returns. It will around 2800--3200

[sKipper]

Ian Gray will win with a increased majority according to the local canvas returns. It will around 2800--3200

:greengrin

I look forward to bumping the above post on the 6th of May.:agree:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Ian Gray will win with a increased majority according to the local canvas returns. It will around 2800--3200

Is "canvas returns" code for "postal votes filled in"?

:wink:

[ancienthibby]

Ian Gray will win with a increased majority according to the local canvas returns. It will around 2800--3200

Not at all what The Hootsman is saying.:greengrin

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Balls-rolls-into-Capital-as.6757991.jp

Sounds as though ERI won't have room for all the Labour casualties!!:thumbsup:

Is the weegreychickencarcrash not there anyway after yesterday's (yet another) disaster??:devil:

[lucky]

Not at all what The Hootsman is saying.:greengrin

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Balls-rolls-into-Capital-as.6757991.jp

Sounds as though ERI won't have room for all the Labour casualties!!:thumbsup:

Is the weegreychickencarcrash not there anyway after yesterday's (yet another) disaster??:devil:

absolutely no chance of of labour losing all of lothian seats. Labour will hold Edinburgh Central, Sarah Boyack, Edinburgh North and Leith, Malcolm Chisholm
East Lothian Ian Gray, Linlithgow Mary Mulligan, win Edinburgh South Paul Godzik and I also fancy Lawrence Fitzpartick in Almond Valley down to the sheer hard work being done locally.

[lucky]

Is "canvas returns" code for "postal votes filled in"?

:wink:

a votes is a vote.


Better than trying to hoodwink the country by Alec Salmond snp for first minister on the regional vote list. Does this mean that the regional nationalist candidates are not any good they have trade on President Salmonds name.

[JimBHibees]

a votes is a vote.


Better than trying to hoodwink the country by Alec Salmond snp for first minister on the regional vote list. Does this mean that the regional nationalist candidates are not any good they have trade on President Salmonds name.

Are you trying to say the voters dont know who Salmond is?

[lucky]

Are you trying to say the voters dont know who Salmond is?

of course not we all know who he is but when you vote on the regional list you are voting for a partys list candidates not wee eck, as such the snp should be bold enough to back their candidates not their President dictator wee eck

[ancienthibby]

absolutely no chance of of labour losing all of lothian seats. Labour will hold Edinburgh Central, Sarah Boyack, Edinburgh North and Leith, Malcolm Chisholm
East Lothian Ian Gray, Linlithgow Mary Mulligan, win Edinburgh South Paul Godzik and I also fancy Lawrence Fitzpartick in Almond Valley down to the sheer hard work being done locally.

Well done for your conviction!

But not even the weegreychickencarcrash believes you!!:agree:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election/gray-admits-snp-is-closing-in-on-victory-1.1097961:greengrin

[Beefster]

of course not we all know who he is but when you vote on the regional list you are voting for a partys list candidates not wee eck, as such the snp should be bold enough to back their candidates not their President dictator wee eck

I think you'll find that 99% of voters have absolutely no idea who any of the candidates on the regional lists are.

[lucky]

That's correct but most of the nats front bench are on the regional list. So the nats did not believe they were going to win

[ancienthibby]

That's correct but most of the nats front bench are on the regional list. So the nats did not believe they were going to win

Correct.

But it's called smart politics.

Liebor, on the other hand continue their breathtaking arrogance by not placing key people on the regional list.

So when the dam breaks.......:greengrin

[lucky]

The tartan Tories were not convinced their argument would will so decided to back up their " best team" with the same people, Total joke that that you can stand for election twice in the one election. Scotland will rue the day if they fall for the spin of wee eck

[ancienthibby]

The tartan Tories were not convinced their argument would will so decided to back up their " best team" with the same people, Total joke that that you can stand for election twice in the one election. Scotland will rue the day if they fall for the spin of wee eck

You're shooting your own people now!:devil:

Remember that it was the late Dour Donald that introduced this voting system in 1997.:greengrin

[Beefster]

The tartan Tories were not convinced their argument would will so decided to back up their " best team" with the same people, Total joke that that you can stand for election twice in the one election. Scotland will rue the day if they fall for the spin of wee eck

I tend to agree with you. I think it makes it practically impossible to get rid of certain MSPs. If they stand as a constituency candidate and are near the top of the regional list, they're almost certain to get a seat (depending on the party).

[Part/Time Supporter]

I tend to agree with you. I think it makes it practically impossible to get rid of certain MSPs. If they stand as a constituency candidate and are near the top of the regional list, they're almost certain to get a seat (depending on the party).

Not necessarily, if they are in a region where the party wins 6-7 of the other constituencies then they probably won't win any list seats.

Of course you could adopt something like STV (used in local elections and Ireland) where you can rank within a party, ie a particularly unpopular guy can get hunted but the other party candidates can still be elected.

[Part/Time Supporter]

a votes is a vote.


Better than trying to hoodwink the country by Alec Salmond snp for first minister on the regional vote list. Does this mean that the regional nationalist candidates are not any good they have trade on President Salmonds name.

Nothing to stop Labour stating "Iain Gray for First Minister" in their box.

I wonder why they don't?

:dunno:

[lucky]

Because the Nats wanted to at the top of the regional list alphabeticlly.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Because the Nats wanted to at the top of the regional list alphabeticlly.

That would cost them votes from folk looking for "Scottish National Party" on the ballot and not finding it in the "correct" place. Swings and roundabouts.

I think it has more to do with the fact the SNP want to emphasise the importance of the "second" vote. If they had leaked more list votes to the minor parties last time then Labour would have won even though they were second in the constituency vote share.

[JimBHibees]

The tartan Tories were not convinced their argument would will so decided to back up their " best team" with the same people, Total joke that that you can stand for election twice in the one election. Scotland will rue the day if they fall for the spin of wee eck

Tartan tories not heard that in a while.

Rue the day really. Bottom line is Labour havent got anyone remotely as good a politician as Salmond and they know it.

[lucky]

Jim there is no doubt that wee eck is a good performer but policies are of great concern. He is generally full of wind and p1ss

[sKipper]

Jim there is no doubt that wee eck is a good performer but policies are of great concern. He is generally full of wind and p1ss

Policies are of no concernto those of us attracted by them.

I also seem to recall Labour copying a few :agree:

Reading your predictions for the Lothians, I think we know who is full of wind and piss.

[lucky]

Skippy time will be judge of that there is no way labour will face wipe out in the lothians

[lucky]

Another to add to the list Karen Whiefield will hold of Alec Neil in airdrie and shotts but don't worry the safety net will keep wee eck bulldog at Hollywood cos he's on the list

[sKipper]

Skippy time will be judge of that there is no way labour will face wipe out in the lothians

Nobody is suggesting they would be wiped out.

You on the other hand reckon they will hold onto all of your seats and gain others ( see your own post somewhere above ).

Now you base this on canvas returns from canvassers no one has seen since the campaign started.

[sKipper]

Another to add to the list Karen Whiefield will hold of Alec Neil in airdrie and shotts but don't worry the safety net will keep wee eck bulldog at Hollywood cos he's on the list

And what do you base this upon ?

[ancienthibby]

Another to add to the list Karen Whiefield will hold of Alec Neil in airdrie and shotts but don't worry the safety net will keep wee eck bulldog at Hollywood cos he's on the list

You are doing a fine impersonation of the weegreyghickencarcrash.:agree:

He is living in the land of the dangerously deluded - and you have joined him there!:greengrin

[lucky]

Can you not state your opinion with out being insulting. My predictions are based on the canvas returns being fed in to John Smith House.

[ancienthibby]

Can you not state your opinion with out being insulting. My predictions are based on the canvas returns being fed in to John Smith House.


Who's insulting??

Deary me, politics is a tough business and posters of woeful party dogma NEED to be CHALLENGED.

As the old saying goes, 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'!!:agree::agree::agree:

[sKipper]

My predictions are based on the canvas returns being fed in to John Smith House.

So you reckon Labour are going to hold onto all of their seats and win the election ?

[Beefster]

Who's insulting??

Deary me, politics is a tough business and posters of woeful party dogma NEED to be CHALLENGED.

As the old saying goes, 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'!!:agree::agree::agree:

You may not be insulting but you do come across a touch highly strung and incapable of having a reasoned debate.

I can be as partisan as the next man but not in every single post.

[ancienthibby]

You may not be insulting but you do come across a touch highly strung and incapable of having a reasoned debate.

I can be as partisan as the next man but not in every single post.

Wise criticism accepted!:thumbsup:

But there is no 'reasoned debate' with 'lucky' so far as I have noticed!!:greengrin

[sKipper]

But there is no 'reasoned debate' with 'lucky' so far as I have noticed!!:greengrin

Spot on ! :agree:

Well seeing he is in Labour. Keep spouting the same pysh and the people will believe it.

Not this time !:wink:

[One Day Soon]

So what? The whole of the UK spends far more than it earns - a deficit of more than £150 billion in each of the last two completed tax years.

It's weird how the alleged Scottish deficit is such a big issue for Labour, but the far bigger UK deficit isn't.

Personally, I'm pretty concerned about both deficits.

The deficit of the last two years is fairly extraordinary and something just about all parties agree we need to get away from. Implying that a Scottish deficit wouldn't be too bad because it would be nowhere near as big as the current UK one is just mad economics.

[One Day Soon]

yeah you where:greengrin

Duller

[One Day Soon]

a votes is a vote.


Better than trying to hoodwink the country by Alec Salmond snp for first minister on the regional vote list. Does this mean that the regional nationalist candidates are not any good they have trade on President Salmonds name.

It was a pretty effective tactic in 2007. Someone who has cast their vote already told me it was far less prominent on the ballot paper this time.

[One Day Soon]

Correct.

But it's called smart politics.

Liebor, on the other hand continue their breathtaking arrogance by not placing key people on the regional list.

So when the dam breaks.......:greengrin

It is smart politics but I think you have the arrogance part the wrong way around. A politician who can only be elected in the constituency vote (becaue they are not on the list) is going to work a lot harder for votes in the election than one who has the insurance policy of a list place.

[One Day Soon]

Not necessarily, if they are in a region where the party wins 6-7 of the other constituencies then they probably won't win any list seats.

Of course you could adopt something like STV (used in local elections and Ireland) where you can rank within a party, ie a particularly unpopular guy can get hunted but the other party candidates can still be elected.

I vastly prefer FPTP. However if some form of PR has to be used then a version like the one you suggest which allows particular candidates to be favoured or dumped is much preferable.

[MountcastleHibs]

It is smart politics but I think you have the arrogance part the wrong way around. A politician who can only be elected in the constituency vote (becaue they are not on the list) is going to work a lot harder for votes in the election than one who has the insurance policy of a list place.

Totally not true. I'm part of Kenny MacAskill's campaign team and I can tell you we're working just as hard, in fact, harder than Euan Aitken, the Labour candidate, who is not on the list.

This trend will be true throughout Scotland, no matter which party banner the person is trying to elected under. Just because you've got the insurance doesn't mean you're not working as hard. I'd say it looks better being a constituency MSP than a regional one.

[lucky]

Most constituency msp candidates should be working hard. I have been in six marginals. The feeling is that they are all winable for both parties. It will be the 6 key seats which will decide the election. The Nat vote is solid in their strong hold even Nicolas vote is holding up. But in the marginals the swing to SNP is not as strong. The lib dem vote has collapsed and is going more to the nats. Tories in the past have voted labour to stop the nats winning in the marginals but its not happening as much. The key to this election is the 25% of voters still to decide.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Most constituency msp candidates should be working hard. I have been in six marginals. The feeling is that they are all winable for both parties. It will be the 6 key seats which will decide the election. The Nat vote is solid in their strong hold even Nicolas vote is holding up. But in the marginals the swing to SNP is not as strong. The lib dem vote has collapsed and is going more to the nats. Tories in the past have voted labour to stop the nats winning in the marginals but its not happening as much. The key to this election is the 25% of voters still to decide.

I agree with you.

:faint:

If the SNP roughly stand still against Labour in the central belt, compared to 2007, they'll win the election because they will definitely pick up some seats off the LibDems in rural parts. Labour has to hold the marginals they're defending (eg Airdrie) and win back a few of the seats the SNP took in 2007 (Stirling, Glasgow Southside, whatever Linlithgow is called now, maybe Edin East).

I didn't believe those polls that had Labour 15-20 points in front and I don't believe the polls that came out last week with the SNP 10+ in front. The pollsters were confusing different types of election before and I think they're over-compensating the other way now. There may have been a slight drift towards the SNP by picking up LibDems who told pollsters before they would vote Labour, but nothing as massive as a 25 point swing would indicate. More like 5 points and the rest is crap polling. The bottom line with polling in Scotland is there hasn't been a reliable one since the Herald stopped System Three.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Most constituency msp candidates should be working hard. I have been in six marginals. The feeling is that they are all winable for both parties. It will be the 6 key seats which will decide the election. The Nat vote is solid in their strong hold even Nicolas vote is holding up. But in the marginals the swing to SNP is not as strong. The lib dem vote has collapsed and is going more to the nats. Tories in the past have voted labour to stop the nats winning in the marginals but its not happening as much. The key to this election is the 25% of voters still to decide.

In that case, was it a tactical error for Labour to claim that David Cameron wants the SNP to win?

[sKipper]

Most constituency msp candidates should be working hard. I have been in six marginals. The feeling is that they are all winable for both parties. It will be the 6 key seats which will decide the election. The Nat vote is solid in their strong hold even Nicolas vote is holding up. But in the marginals the swing to SNP is not as strong. The lib dem vote has collapsed and is going more to the nats. Tories in the past have voted labour to stop the nats winning in the marginals but its not happening as much. The key to this election is the 25% of voters still to decide.

Out of interest which 6 seats are these ?

[sKipper]

I agree with you.

:faint:

If the SNP roughly stand still against Labour in the central belt, compared to 2007, they'll win the election because they will definitely pick up some seats off the LibDems in rural parts. Labour has to hold the marginals they're defending (eg Airdrie) and win back a few of the seats the SNP took in 2007 (Stirling, Glasgow Southside, whatever Linlithgow is called now, maybe Edin East).

I didn't believe those polls that had Labour 15-20 points in front and I don't believe the polls that came out last week with the SNP 10+ in front. The pollsters were confusing different types of election before and I think they're over-compensating the other way now. There may have been a slight drift towards the SNP by picking up LibDems who told pollsters before they would vote Labour, but nothing as massive as a 25 point swing would indicate. More like 5 points and the rest is crap polling. The bottom line with polling in Scotland is there hasn't been a reliable one since the Herald stopped System Three.

A mere 3% swing from Labour to SNP would mean around 8 seats changing hands I believe.

[Part/Time Supporter]

A mere 3% swing from Labour to SNP would mean around 8 seats changing hands I believe.

My reckoning is that Labour started a few points ahead of where they were in 2007, with the recent swing neutralising that lead. I think the election is still in the balance, so notions of significant SNP gains off Labour are a bit fanciful IMO.

[sKipper]

My reckoning is that Labour started a few points ahead of where they were in 2007, with the recent swing neutralising that lead. I think the election is still in the balance, so notions of significant SNP gains off Labour are a bit fanciful IMO.

The last poll had them on 32% which is exactly what they got in 2007.

[JimBHibees]

My reckoning is that Labour started a few points ahead of where they were in 2007, with the recent swing neutralising that lead. I think the election is still in the balance, so notions of significant SNP gains off Labour are a bit fanciful IMO.

Yep I think Labour will take it just which IMO would be a shame.

[MountcastleHibs]

I am genuinely infuriated for the first time in this election campaign. I've just received a flier through the door from Labour which states, 'I voted SNP last time but never again. They promised to write off student debt - but broke their promise just days after I voted for them'. That statement is wrong in so many ways.

Labour were the party who introduced the tuition fee, not the SNP. But the SNP were part of getting rid of them in 2000, along with the Lib Dems. If it wasn't for them, we'd probably still have tuition fees. The SNP were the ones who abolished the graduate endowment back in 2008, not the Labour party.

The front of the flier concludes with the statement, 'What's more important to you? Independence or jobs for young people?' I don't see the Labour party proposing 200,000 apprenticeships. What a load of bull.

I'm not going to go into the back of the flier, but it starts with, 'Now the Tories are back'.

[lucky]

Almond valley, linlithgow, Airdie and Shotts are all to close to call. labour defending 2 but 3 Nat ministers. Not going to name the other 3 at this stage but I'm sure the nats in the know will have there list as well.

[Part/Time Supporter]

The last poll had them on 32% which is exactly what they got in 2007.

As I said above, the polls have been consistently pisspoor. I think both SNP and Labour will get somewhere around 37-38%.

[RyeSloan]

I am genuinely infuriated for the first time in this election campaign. I've just received a flier through the door from Labour which states, 'I voted SNP last time but never again. They promised to write off student debt - but broke their promise just days after I voted for them'. That statement is wrong in so many ways.Labour were the party who introduced the tuition fee, not the SNP. But the SNP were part of getting rid of them in 2000, along with the Lib Dems. If it wasn't for them, we'd probably still have tuition fees. The SNP were the ones who abolished the graduate endowment back in 2008, not the Labour party.

The front of the flier concludes with the statement, 'What's more important to you? Independence or jobs for young people?' I don't see the Labour party proposing 200,000 apprenticeships. What a load of bull.

I'm not going to go into the back of the flier, but it starts with, 'Now the Tories are back'.

It was a manifesto promise was it not?

As far as I can remember it was very quickly put on the back burner.

More than happy for you to explain why the statement is wrong in so many ways as I'm genuinely interested.

As for 200,000 apprenticeships...I think that's the bull, just where are these apprenticeships going to come from? How will the SNP strong arm the businesses that are going to provide them into doing so from (I assume) as position where they saw no need for them? Finally how on earth can the SNP measure what volume of apprenticeships they have created v what would have happened anyway or are they going to pull the same trick as the vast list of acheivements where they claim responsibility for every apprentice employed in Scotland for the next 4 (5?) years?

[MountcastleHibs]

It was a manifesto promise was it not?

As far as I can remember it was very quickly put on the back burner.

More than happy for you to explain why the statement is wrong in so many ways as I'm genuinely interested.

As for 200,000 apprenticeships...I think that's the bull, just where are these apprenticeships going to come from? How will the SNP strong arm the businesses that are going to provide them into doing so from (I assume) as position where they saw no need for them? Finally how on earth can the SNP measure what volume of apprenticeships they have created v what would have happened anyway or are they going to pull the same trick as the vast list of acheivements where they claim responsibility for every apprentice employed in Scotland for the next 4 (5?) years?

Student debt was created by the graduate endowment, amongst other things. With the fee that you had to pay at the end of your degree, students were borrowing money to pay for it. The only really debt a Scottish student has now is from the student loan. Are you expecting government's to hand out money without getting it back from the students? The loan only gets paid back once you are earning £15,000, at a minimal interest rate, so it's hardly student debt.

I think you can say you are going to create a certain number of apprenticeships by investing in areas where apprenticeships are key, and offering companies incentives to employ young people.

The flier also makes mention of a freeze in council tax which Labour will implement. They forget to mention that they voted against it in Parliament, and it's an SNP policy. Never mind though.

[lucky]

It was the labour led government which abolished tuition fees in Scotland. Wee eck promised to wipe out student debt but failed to do so

[MountcastleHibs]

It was the labour led government which abolished tuition fees in Scotland. Wee eck promised to wipe out student debt but failed to do so

After the Labour led government had implemented them three years previously.

It was a Lib Dem policy to abolish them. Not a Labour. Same with bus passes. They may have led the administration, but it wasn't their policy.

[CropleyWasGod]

It was the labour led government which abolished tuition fees in Scotland. Wee eck promised to wipe out student debt but failed to do so

It was also the Labour administration that demanded that the Liberals drop their opposition to tuition fees, in return for a place in the coalition.

[CropleyWasGod]

After the Labour led government had implemented them three years previously.

It was a Lib Dem policy to abolish them. Not a Labour. Same with bus passes. They may have led the administration, but it wasn't there policy.

Was.... until they got a sniff of power.

Then they ditched it.:rolleyes:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Was.... until they got a sniff of power.

Then they ditched it.:rolleyes:

You're confusing Holyrood with Westminster. The Scottish Lib Dems forced through the abolition of tuition fees. It was Clegg's lot that turned tail re English fees.

[CropleyWasGod]

You're confusing Holyrood with Westminster. The Scottish Lib Dems forced through the abolition of tuition fees. It was Clegg's lot that turned tail re English fees.

No Im not.

Jim Wallace was invited into the Scottish coalition with Labour in 1999, on the condition that his party drop their opposition to tuition fees.

I should remember it. It was my son's first opportunity to vote. He shouted long and hard in favour of the LibDems, on the basis of their (flagship) education policy, and managed to sway many a floating voter. His disgust and anger when they reneged on it was sad to see in one so young. I have never considered voting LibDem since, and had a wry smile when Clegg did the same last year.

[Part/Time Supporter]

The compromise was to set up a Scottish inquiry (Cubie), as the fees had been introduced on the basis of an English inquiry (Dearing) a few years earlier. Cubie then recommended abolishing tuition fees and replacing with the endowment, which the Parliament did. I'm obviously of a similar age to your son and have that warmer recollection of the LibDems involvement at that time. If Labour had gone it alone then Cubie wouldn't have been set up and the fees abolished.

Of course the SNP then went and scrapped the endowment as well soon after getting in.

[ScottB]

It was the labour led government which abolished tuition fees in Scotland. Wee eck promised to wipe out student debt but failed to do so

Labour made it clear they would stop that bill in its tracks, hence it was never tabled. Ditto the Independence Bill.

Then that moron Gray waddles up to tell us all about the things the SNP failed to deliver, leaving out it was mostly cause his lot voted them down.


Labour have led a miserable, negative campaign, hoping to scare voters and reinforce their dour, negative view of this country. I hope they get hung out to dry. That Gray himself could lose his own seat is hilarious and a brilliant illustration of Labour in Scotland. They don't care about us other than being a set of stick on seats for London. They want power to try and put pressure on the Tories in London, not for the good of Scotland.


As for polling, Ipsos MORI is the best bet out of the current lot, since the results are adjusted to represent demographics and those taking part don't know what the survey is until it begins, unlike say YouGov who poll people who sign up with them only.

[CropleyWasGod]

The compromise was to set up a Scottish inquiry (Cubie), as the fees had been introduced on the basis of an English inquiry (Dearing) a few years earlier. Cubie then recommended abolishing tuition fees and replacing with the endowment, which the Parliament did. I'm obviously of a similar age to your son and have that warmer recollection of the LibDems involvement at that time. If Labour had gone it alone then Cubie wouldn't have been set up and the fees abolished.

Of course the SNP then went and scrapped the endowment as well soon after getting in.

The issue was the sheer cynicism of the LibDems in ditching what was their main election promise, which gained them a lot of support and seats, for a share of power. Just as they did last year...

[ScottB]

The compromise was to set up a Scottish inquiry (Cubie), as the fees had been introduced on the basis of an English inquiry (Dearing) a few years earlier. Cubie then recommended abolishing tuition fees and replacing with the endowment, which the Parliament did. I'm obviously of a similar age to your son and have that warmer recollection of the LibDems involvement at that time. If Labour had gone it alone then Cubie wouldn't have been set up and the fees abolished.

Of course the SNP then went and scrapped the endowment as well soon after getting in.

The endowment went because it was losing money hand over fist.

Since almost everybody paid for it with a loan, which came under the £15k repayment threshold, they were giving out far more money than they ever got back, so scrapping it was the right plan. As one of the only 2 or 3 years of students who paid it, it was a bloody joke of a system. As was the Lab / Lib Executive telling everyone the loans were interest free. I can promise you they never were!

Personally I suspect this new English system will go the same way, giving everyone £27k in loans and then not getting it back for years if at all. Sounds just the same!

[Beefster]

I am genuinely infuriated for the first time in this election campaign. I've just received a flier through the door from Labour which states, 'I voted SNP last time but never again. They promised to write off student debt - but broke their promise just days after I voted for them'. That statement is wrong in so many ways.

Labour were the party who introduced the tuition fee, not the SNP. But the SNP were part of getting rid of them in 2000, along with the Lib Dems. If it wasn't for them, we'd probably still have tuition fees. The SNP were the ones who abolished the graduate endowment back in 2008, not the Labour party.

The front of the flier concludes with the statement, 'What's more important to you? Independence or jobs for young people?' I don't see the Labour party proposing 200,000 apprenticeships. What a load of bull.

I'm not going to go into the back of the flier, but it starts with, 'Now the Tories are back'.

In Labour's defence, that's because a guaranteed apprenticeship for 1 in 20 of Scots of working age is pretty much undeliverable by anyone.

[bighairyfaeleith]

In Labour's defence, that's because a guaranteed apprenticeship for 1 in 20 of Scots of working age is pretty much undeliverable by anyone.

sorry not quite getting my head round the figures here, anyone know how many scots are of an age to do an apprenticeship, i.e. 16-19 (assuming thats the apprenticeship age bracket)

Just trying to figure out how realistic the figure is, I know when I was at school probably 2 out of 5 done an apprenticeship, probably been a lot less in recent years with labours uni fest.

[MountcastleHibs]

I'm going to make a correction on my figures. Was at a hustings this evening, and Kenny MacAskill stated 25,000 over the next 4 years, so 100,000 apprenticeship created in 4 years.

He also said that 20,000 had been created in the last year.

[RyeSloan]

I'm going to make a correction on my figures. Was at a hustings this evening, and Kenny MacAskill stated 25,000 over the next 4 years, so 100,000 apprenticeship created in 4 years.

He also said that 20,000 had been created in the last year.

That's my point...created by who and why? ONLY because the SNP (i.e the state) is funding them all or is it a back door subsidy to business that would have created these jobs in the first place. Didn't take the SNP long to attach themsleves to the total number of apprenticeships given...are they genuinely looking for credit for a policy they have not even implemented yet?

I think we should be looking at how we tax and treat business as a whole rather than trying to create artifical demand for apprenticeships where it may well not be needed.

As for the student loan response...thanks for that.

"Student debt was created by the graduate endowment, amongst other things. With the fee that you had to pay at the end of your degree, students were borrowing money to pay for it. The only really debt a Scottish student has now is from the student loan. Are you expecting government's to hand out money without getting it back from the students? The loan only gets paid back once you are earning £15,000, at a minimal interest rate, so it's hardly student debt"

I'm not sure you have clarified...the SNP proposed writing off all Scottish student debt did they not? Where in your answer does it explain why they did not do this...I personally didn't support the promise so have no beef with it not being followed through but you explicitly indicated that Labour were lying about the promise being broken..I still don’t understand why you think it wasn't.

In John Swinney's own words:

"I know there is insufficient parliamentary support for student debt servicing for loans to grants and we must therefore prioritise funding on policies that we can deliver and which will be supported by Parliament.

"I am therefore not allocating funding for student debt servicing in the period of the Budget."

From the Herald:

"Finance secretary John Swinney revealed that the SNP's proposal to scrap student debt for those living in Scotland would be shelved owing to funding constraints."

"The plan had been a flagship promise from the party going into the election in May which it eventually won by one seat from Labour"

Seems pretty clear to me. The peldge was broken almost as soon as the SNP were in power.

[ScottB]

That's my point...created by who and why? ONLY because the SNP (i.e the state) is funding them all or is it a back door subsidy to business that would have created these jobs in the first place. Didn't take the SNP long to attach themsleves to the total number of apprenticeships given...are they genuinely looking for credit for a policy they have not even implemented yet?

I think we should be looking at how we tax and treat business as a whole rather than trying to create artifical demand for apprenticeships where it may well not be needed.

As for the student loan response...thanks for that.

"Student debt was created by the graduate endowment, amongst other things. With the fee that you had to pay at the end of your degree, students were borrowing money to pay for it. The only really debt a Scottish student has now is from the student loan. Are you expecting government's to hand out money without getting it back from the students? The loan only gets paid back once you are earning £15,000, at a minimal interest rate, so it's hardly student debt"

I'm not sure you have clarified...the SNP proposed writing off all Scottish student debt did they not? Where in your answer does it explain why they did not do this...I personally didn't support the promise so have no beef with it not being followed through but you explicitly indicated that Labour were lying about the promise being broken..I still don’t understand why you think it wasn't.

In John Swinney's own words:

"I know there is insufficient parliamentary support for student debt servicing for loans to grants and we must therefore prioritise funding on policies that we can deliver and which will be supported by Parliament.

"I am therefore not allocating funding for student debt servicing in the period of the Budget."

From the Herald:

"Finance secretary John Swinney revealed that the SNP's proposal to scrap student debt for those living in Scotland would be shelved owing to funding constraints."

"The plan had been a flagship promise from the party going into the election in May which it eventually won by one seat from Labour"

Seems pretty clear to me. The peldge was broken almost as soon as the SNP were in power.

It says pretty clearly that it was ditched due to lack of support. Had they tabled the bill it would have been voted down, so they never bothered trying, and obviously never bothered factoring it into a budget.

Labour are really annoying me with their double standards, either they complain the SNP wasted time trying to pass bills there was no support for, or complain that they didn't table bills even though it was painfully obvious there was no chance of it going through, then tell everyone about that 'broken promise' even though it was Labour MSPs that prevented it going through.

Of course they didn't pass everything, they were a minority government, not the usual Westminster majority government running rough shod over everyone else doing what they like. To get as much passed as they did in a hostile chamber is impressive in my book.

[RyeSloan]

It says pretty clearly that it was ditched due to lack of support. Had they tabled the bill it would have been voted down, so they never bothered trying, and obviously never bothered factoring it into a budget.

Labour are really annoying me with their double standards, either they complain the SNP wasted time trying to pass bills there was no support for, or complain that they didn't table bills even though it was painfully obvious there was no chance of it going through, then tell everyone about that 'broken promise' even though it was Labour MSPs that prevented it going through.

Of course they didn't pass everything, they were a minority government, not the usual Westminster majority government running rough shod over everyone else doing what they like. To get as much passed as they did in a hostile chamber is impressive in my book.

To be fair I think most of the parties have been rerasonably sensible about the minority government...this has been a big positive and is a credit to our parliamentary process, not any one party. It shows that parties can negotiate and be rational when required.

I'm still struggling with the rationale on the fact that the SNP didn't break a pretty major pledge. Are you saying that because it was 'assumed' that the peldge would not make it through parliament it was simply thrown out immediately without any effort being made to put an argument forward to the chamber as a whole? This sounds like the Independence Referendum cop out to me....if the pledge was serious then they should have included it in their first budget and argued the case. IF it was then voted down and the move had to be removed to secure an agreement on the budget then that would have been fair enough. The SNP could have stated that they attempted to implement their promise but that other parties stopped it.

What has happened here would appear to be somewhat different, there was no real desire to implement the pledge so it was immediately dropped and has not been resurected since. In other words it would seem quite likely this was a pledge made in a crass attempt to win the student vote but with the full knowledge that it would never come to pass and I still don't see how saying the broke their pledge is a million miles from the truth (or however it was stated!) when in reality they never even attempted to implement the pledge before dropping it!!

[steakbake]

Wonder if today's rammy in Kelvingrove will be an election deciding moment.

The SNP want to sort Scotlands alcohol problem but had its bill - widely supported by the public services, medical professionals etc - but voted down by Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems.

Bet you they'll be falling over themselves trying to tell you how they're going to get serious with the problem, but that doing nothing was better than doing what the SNP and the medical professions had argued for.

[lucky]

Wonder if today's rammy in Kelvingrove will be an election deciding moment.

The SNP want to sort Scotlands alcohol problem but had its bill - widely supported by the public services, medical professionals etc - but voted down by Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems.

Bet you they'll be falling over themselves trying to tell you how they're going to get serious with the problem, but that doing nothing was better than doing what the SNP and the medical professions had argued for.

Are you suggesting that making alcohol more expensive would have stop the thuggish behaviour of some Ned's in a Glasgow park?
The reason that the proposals were voted down in the parliament was that all other parties thought the proposals in that format were unworkable. The other parties wanted further discussion and were willing to work together to get legislation that would have made a difference but wee Eck took the huff again and lost again.

[steakbake]

Are you suggesting that making alcohol more expensive would have stop the thuggish behaviour of some Ned's in a Glasgow park?
The reason that the proposals were voted down in the parliament was that all other parties thought the proposals in that format were unworkable. The other parties wanted further discussion and were willing to work together to get legislation that would have made a difference but wee Eck took the huff again and lost again.

All the other parties knew better than the police, medical services etc etc who backed them? And are they not the self same proposals that the Tories and LDs are considering in Westminster and Labour and PC are considering in Wales?

Bottom line is: this would have been tremendous government and people would have given the credit to the SNP. Once again, the partisan and clannish nature of Scottish politics got in the way.

It'll be interesting if Labour form the next government, how long it would take for them to suggest some similar proposals.

[lucky]

As I stated all parties support taking action but the legislation in the format that was being proposed did not meet the objectives that Parliament hoped it would as such it fell.

Democracy is alive in the Scottish parliament. We don't have a president or a ruler with absolute power. I know wee eck struggles with this but the sooner he realises he has to work with all parties the sooner we can achieve more for Scotland

[lucky]

Almond valley, linlithgow, Airdie and Shotts are all to close to call. labour defending 2 but 3 Nat ministers. Not going to name the other 3 at this stage but I'm sure the nats in the know will have there list as well.

Labour doing very well in Almond Valley, Airdrie and Shotts, Edinburgh South.
Stirling to close to call as is Midlothian North and Musselburgh

Nats seem to be in front in Linlithgow.

everything to play for, latest polls leave wee eck on course for FM and independence but momentum has now swung back Labours way.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Scottish-Election-2011-Labour-slashes.6760526.jp

[hibsbollah]

That poll analysis shows a possible SNP/Green voting block would be just 2 seats short of a working majority. Its obviously on a knifeedge...Godzik vs Pringle in edinburgh south should be a good pointer as to how the night will go for Labour... Prepare for a deluge of spotty earnest canvassers at your doors over the next few days :-)

[lucky]

That poll analysis shows a possible SNP/Green voting block would be just 2 seats short of a working majority. Its obviously on a knifeedge...Godzik vs Pringle in edinburgh south should be a good pointer as to how the night will go for Labour... Prepare for a deluge of spotty earnest canvassers at your doors over the next few days :-)

Edinburgh South is going very well for Labour. The Lib Dems vote is not collapsing as much there as across the country as such there is no swing towards the nats

[bighairyfaeleith]

Edinburgh South is going very well for Labour. The Lib Dems vote is not collapsing as much there as across the country as such there is no swing towards the nats

How can you know that?:confused:

[One Day Soon]

That poll analysis shows a possible SNP/Green voting block would be just 2 seats short of a working majority. Its obviously on a knifeedge...Godzik vs Pringle in edinburgh south should be a good pointer as to how the night will go for Labour... Prepare for a deluge of spotty earnest canvassers at your doors over the next few days :-)

If that's the barometer then Labour are going to have a good night. Full of very angry former Lib Dem voters and an academic community (students and staff) who feel betrayed by them.

However Edinburgh Southern is more like a middle class seat in England so I'm not sure it will say much about what happens elsewhere.

The turn in the polls may have come too late for Labour or they may have fallen very lucky and go into the final week with momentum. Either way the voters sure run a mile when they think they're being offered independence.

[lucky]

How can you know that?:confused:

From canvas returns. How do you think political parties know how the elections will turn out. Obviously some people lie about who they are going to vote for and also they can change their minds on the day

[ballengeich]

From canvas returns.

The word is canvass (a pedant writes). Tak tent!

[CropleyWasGod]

From canvas returns. How do you think political parties know how the elections will turn out. Obviously some people lie about who they are going to vote for and also they can change their minds on the day

In 35 years of voting, I have never been asked for my voting intentions. From a statistical point of view, it would seem that canvass returns, although useful, can't possibly be used as the basis for a prediction.

[Removed]

In 35 years of voting, I have never been asked for my voting intentions. From a statistical point of view, it would seem that canvass returns, although useful, can't possibly be used as the basis for a prediction.

Slightly less than 35 years for me but I'm the same.

And I can't even remember the last time I had a prospective candidate or even any party member knock on my door for a chat. I get 'personalised' letters from them all but they go straight in the shredder.

[bighairyfaeleith]

From canvas returns. How do you think political parties know how the elections will turn out. Obviously some people lie about who they are going to vote for and also they can change their minds on the day

sorry, excuse my ignorance on this, but canvas returns, is that like people that go door to door asking you how you are going to vote?

[lucky]

sorry, excuse my ignorance on this, but canvass returns, is that like people that go door to door asking you how you are going to vote?

Yes. In livingston alone Labour have knocked on 18000 doors. It allows the party to gage the level of support

[bighairyfaeleith]

Yes. In livingston alone Labour have knocked on 18000 doors. It allioes the party to cage the level of support

Thanks

[allmodcons]

Labour doing very well in Almond Valley, Airdrie and Shotts, Edinburgh South.
Stirling to close to call as is Midlothian North and Musselburgh

Nats seem to be in front in Linlithgow.

everything to play for, latest polls leave wee eck on course for FM and independence but momentum has now swung back Labours way.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Scottish-Election-2011-Labour-slashes.6760526.jp


There was 2 polls carried out at the weekend. Strange (not) that you choose to highlight the poll that shows a slight swing to Labour.

By the way, what has canvas (cover for tents) and cages (!!!) got to do with using canvassing returns to gauge support???

[DaveF]

Yes. In livingston alone Labour have knocked on 18000 doors.

Why Labour is wasting time knocking on that many doors in Livingston is a bit beyond me. Livingston should be a safe Labour seat and it's akin to the Tories checking the vote in Kensington \ Chelsea!

Maybe Labour are more worried than the party publicists on here are letting on :greengrin

[DaveF]

I have never been asked for my voting intentions.

Me neither. In fact, has anyone (other than paid up members of political parties) ever been asked?

[lucky]

Livingston [ almond valley] is currently held by the nats. As such it's a key seat

[DaveF]

Livingston [ almond valley] is currently held by the nats. As such it's a key seat

I see (he says, backtracking quickly) :greengrin

Is the constituency the same for Scottish and Westminster Elections? Pretty sure Livingston is a safe Labour seat in the UK parliament.

[Future17]

I see (he says, backtracking quickly) :greengrin

Is the constituency the same for Scottish and Westminster Elections? Pretty sure Livingston is a safe Labour seat in the UK parliament.

Not sure about historically but was won by Labour in the 2010 UK General Election.

18,000 doors in Livingston is a lot. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that's at least 90% of the properties - unless of course they knocked on the front and back doors, but that doesn't work for flats.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I see (he says, backtracking quickly) :greengrin

Is the constituency the same for Scottish and Westminster Elections? Pretty sure Livingston is a safe Labour seat in the UK parliament.

About 1/5 of Labour voters in Westminster elections seem to vote SNP in other elections nowadays, if the polls and the last few election results are to be believed. Although I suppose they could be SNP voters who lend Labour their vote for Westminster.

:wink:

[JimBHibees]

Yes. In livingston alone Labour have knocked on 18000 doors. It allows the party to gage the level of support

Certainly havent knocked on my door only person was an SNP person.

[ancienthibby]

Yes. In livingston alone Labour have knocked on 18000 doors. It allows the party to gage the level of support

Aye right!

As if everyone tells a canvasser the truth!!:faf::faf::faf: