General Election 2015...

[snooky]

What's your name?

Snooky Ponsonby, so what? :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/07/nicola-sturgeon-right-about-retirement

Frankie Boyle's lighthearted view on the election. He does make some good points though.

[snooky]

I didn't think there was a clear winner. Nicola Sturgeon got a much harder time than she did in the UK wide debate which was to be expected given that she is in Governmrnt here. She handled everything well though with no slip ups.
Jim Murphy also did well which surprised me. He did a lot to expose the lie that Labour are simply Red Tories. its a bit strange hearing SNP supporters continue to press that line whilst their leader offers to put them in power. There was certainly no love lost between Murphy and Ruth Davidson. Ms Davidson did less well than I expected. Losing her cool didn't do her any favours, memories of the nasty party returned. As for Willie Rennie, he talked well but he really has nothing to lose given the way his party has been marginalised and he looked like a man who knew it.
I can't see last nights debate changing many minds. I was voting SNP before I watched the debate and all last night did was confirm that for me it is the right way to go in this election.

Politically, it's always harder to argue your case when you are in power. Currently this applies to Nicola Sturgeon and David Cameron. The Opposition can attack your obvious weaknesses. Ones that the public have experienced and are well aware of. The ruling party leaders generally get pressed into explaining these failings and are therefore they are on the back foot from the off.

[Geo_1875]

Politically, it's always harder to argue your case when you are in power. Currently this applies to Nicola Sturgeon and David Cameron. The Opposition can attack your obvious weaknesses. Ones that the public have experienced and are well aware of. The ruling party leaders generally get pressed into explaining these failings and are therefore they are on the back foot from the off.

That has always been the case, even before these "Leaders Debates". Opposition parties have always been able to make vague promises to the electorate while the government must defend their record. What has changed is that these debates are meant to be about the UK General Election yet Nicola Sturgeon is being questioned about devolved matters which should have little or no bearing on the UK election. They should be kept on topic.

[marinello59]

That has always been the case, even before these "Leaders Debates". Opposition parties have always been able to make vague promises to the electorate while the government must defend their record. What has changed is that these debates are meant to be about the UK General Election yet Nicola Sturgeon is being questioned about devolved matters which should have little or no bearing on the UK election. They should be kept on topic.

But the SNP are going to have a major say in which party will be in power in a UK election, it's only right that the principles that guide them are questioned. Health, Education etc are major issues in this election whether they are devolved or not. Given that Nicola Sturgeon has said that SNP MPs will vote on devolved Health matters at Westminster it's only right her views on the NHS in particular are questioned. It's not doing her any harm, the more she answers the better she sounds.

[Geo_1875]

But the SNP are going to have a major say in which party will be in power in a UK election, it's only right that the principles that guide them are questioned. Health, Education etc are major issues in this election whether they are devolved or not. Given that Nicola Sturgeon has said that SNP MPs will vote on devolved Health matters at Westminster it's only right her views on the NHS in particular are questioned. It's not doing her any harm, the more she answers the better she sounds.

I agree but many voters can't tell the difference between devolved and reserved matters, and their is a big difference between running the NHS in Scotland and voting on the NHS in Westminster to protect Barnett consequentials. However, many voters also fail to notice how strange it is to see Jim Murphy claiming that Labour will implement policies which have already been rejected by the party leaders.

[--------]

I agree but many voters can't tell the difference between devolved and reserved matters, and their is a big difference between running the NHS in Scotland and voting on the NHS in Westminster to protect Barnett consequentials. However, many voters also fail to notice how strange it is to see Jim Murphy claiming that Labour will implement policies which have already been rejected by the party leaders.


Hm. I didn't.

It was amusing to watch Murphy and Davidson yelling at one another and Nicola Sturgeon smiling and waiting for Murphy to turn on her - as he did, to accuse her of blatant misrepresentation of facts. And then he went on to do just as you mention - tell the audience that Labour would do all sorts of things that his London bosses have already made it clear they won't.

Davidson - crabbit besom.
Murphy - sleekit and totally untrustworthy.

Basically the two cheeks of the same backside, I'd say.

Rennie - nice enough guy, means well.

Sturgeon sounded the most intelligent and focussed of the four.

All three of the others can say what they like to a Scottish audience - what they actually do if they're elected will be dictated by their bosses down south.

[snooky]

Hm. I didn't.

It was amusing to watch Murphy and Davidson yelling at one another and Nicola Sturgeon smiling and waiting for Murphy to turn on her - as he did, to accuse her of blatant misrepresentation of facts. And then he went on to do just as you mention - tell the audience that Labour would do all sorts of things that his London bosses have already made it clear they won't.

Davidson - crabbit besom.
Murphy - sleekit and totally untrustworthy.

Basically the two cheeks of the same backside, I'd say.

Rennie - nice enough guy, means well.

Sturgeon sounded the most intelligent and focussed of the four.

All three of the others can say what they like to a Scottish audience - what they actually do if they're elected will be dictated by their bosses down south.

:agree:
Davidson = Despite her name, her party is ruthless
Murphy = Despite trying to sound like a good spud, his party has had its chips
Rennie = Despite his name his party gives me indigestion
Sturgeon = From Wiki....
Sturgeon is the common name used for some 25 species of fish ...... The term includes over 20 species commonly referred to as sturgeon and several closely related species that have distinct common names, notably sterlet, kaluga, and beluga. Collectively, the family is also known as the true sturgeons.[2][3]
:wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

That has always been the case, even before these "Leaders Debates". Opposition parties have always been able to make vague promises to the electorate while the government must defend their record. What has changed is that these debates are meant to be about the UK General Election yet Nicola Sturgeon is being questioned about devolved matters which should have little or no bearing on the UK election. They should be kept on topic.


i noticed on the ITV news afterwards that every clip they showed was of mad ruth, crate boy and what's his name liberal guy tearing in to Nicola Sturgeon, not in to each other just her...unbiased my e*se, fairness pfftt :bitchy: shameful reporting for the benefit of their english news-watching audience

[cabbageandribs1875]

:agree:
Davidson = Despite her name, her party is ruthless
Murphy = Despite trying to sound like a good spud, his party has had its chips
Rennie = Despite his name his party gives me indigestion
Sturgeon = From Wiki....
Sturgeon is the common name used for some 25 species of fish ...... The term includes over 20 species commonly referred to as sturgeon and several closely related species that have distinct common names, notably sterlet, kaluga, and beluga. Collectively, the family is also known as the true sturgeons.[2][3]
:wink:



Sturgeon= Caviar

Murphy= Offal

[bawheid]

Is anyone chairing this debate? Every time Sturgeon speaks she's being shouted over by some boorish lout.

Audience is hand picked from Better Together as well it would seem.

[marinello59]

Is anyone chairing this debate? Every time Sturgeon speaks she's being shouted over by some boorish lout.

Audience is hand picked from Better Together as well it would seem.

Every single one of them is shouting over the others including Nicola Sturgeon. It isn't pretty at all.
I don't see any problem with the audience, a broad mix of views.

[bawheid]

Every single one of them is shouting over the others including Nicola Sturgeon. It isn't pretty at all.
I don't see any problem with the audience, a broad mix of views.

It's being chaired hopelessly. There is a certain amount of ganging up on Sturgeon going on IMO. Perhaps I'm biased!

I can't see that Ruth Davidson has come across well the last couple of nights. Murphy seems to be a walking soundbite.

[marinello59]

It's being chaired hopelessly. There is a certain amount of ganging up on Sturgeon going on IMO. Perhaps I'm biased!

I can't see that Ruth Davidson has come across well the last couple of nights. Murphy seems to be a walking soundbite.

I agree about the way the meeting is being chaired, it's beyond awful. I do think the others are concentrating more on scoring points off Nicola Sturgeon but that's because the SNP are so far ahead in the polls.
Ruth Davidson has had another bad night but apart from possibly Patrick Harvie I don't think anybody has really had a good night. A televised debate too far maybe?

[bawheid]

Think you may be right Marinello. It's turned into a game of who can shout the loudest.

James Cook is completely out of his depth.

[cabbageandribs1875]

forgot this was on :( wee nicola looking a wee hotty the night :greengrin





oh and P.S. STFU murphy ya goat

[liamh2202]

Is anyone chairing this debate? Every time Sturgeon speaks she's being shouted over by some boorish lout.

Audience is hand picked from Better Together as well it would seem.

You sound paranoid mate. The country voted no and sturgeon can't let it go.

Im also a poet who didn't know it. That was unintentional lol

[speedy_gonzales]

Is anyone chairing this debate?
James Cook apparently. From memory he presided over one of the Independence referendum TV debates,,,,equally poorly!


Audience is hand picked from Better Together as well it would seem.
Seemed fairly neutral to me when reacting to the various points made by the 6 party reps,,,,,the view of audience impartiality probably differs whether you are a naw-bag or a member of the YEStapo!

[bawheid]

You sound paranoid mate.

When it comes to BBC impartiality, defo. :agree:

[Mr Grieves]

You sound paranoid mate. The country voted no and sturgeon can't let it go.

Im also a poet who didn't know it. That was unintentional lol

Funny that....the only people to bring the referendum up during these debates were better together folk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hannah_hfc]

You sound paranoid mate. The country voted no and sturgeon can't let it go.


I can't help but notice another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something. Becoming a joke now. She should focus her efforts on running the country, not this persistent 'will there, won't there '

[BroxburnHibee]

I'm not convinced these debates are achieving anything.

Anyone basing their voting intentions on what we've seen so far would be aff their heeds :greengrin

[The Harp Awakes]

Well what a non-event tonight's debate was. Hopelessly chaired. Every time Sturgeon was invited to speak she was drowned out by the other 5 (Harvie apart). It seemed like the other 5 had decided before the event that the only way to stop the SNP bandwaggon was to take it in turns to drown Sturgeon out. Having said that Nicola held her own.

From a Labour point of view I think Murphy's strategy in these debates is seriously flawed. He would be better spending some of his time having a go at the Tories rather than resorting to shouty tactics against Sturgeon. Many in Scotland see Labour as red Tories and not taking on Ruth Davidson at all in the debates just re-enforces that view.

[JeMeSouviens]

Call me paranoid (I am) but isn't it a tad coincidental that both our weedgie based broadcasters decided to hold their debates away from yes voting Glasgow?

[The Harp Awakes]

I can't help but notice another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something. Becoming a joke now. She should focus her efforts on running the country, not this persistent 'will there, won't there '

Eh? The only thing that happened in tonight's debate was that the 5 Unionist parties continually harped back to the referendum. When pressed repeatedly on the SNP's plans for a referendum in their 2016 Holyrood manifesto Sturgeon said it was unlikely unless something material happened, e.g., exiting the EU. A threat :faf:

[liamh2202]

Eh? The only thing that happened in tonight's debate was that the 5 Unionist parties continually harped back to the referendum. When pressed repeatedly on the SNP's plans for a referendum in their 2016 Holyrood manifesto Sturgeon said it was unlikely unless something material happened, e.g., exiting the EU. A threat :faf:


But the country voted no. Which means it voted to take decisions as a united kingdom.. Why should it mean another referendum if a vote does not go the way that the majority in Scotland vote for. That was the choice last year and that was the outcome. It's time the yes cam accepted this

[Mikey09]

I can't help but notice another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something. Becoming a joke now. She should focus her efforts on running the country, not this persistent 'will there, won't there '


What a load of utter garbage that statement is!! The only people bringing it up are Better together cheerleaders. It's amazing how the Better Together campaign kept telling us how important Scotland was to the UK yet now there is a "threat" they have a big voice in Westminster they don't like it.... Oh the Irony.... :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

But the country voted no. Which means it voted to take decisions as a united kingdom.. Why should it mean another referendum if a vote does not go the way that the majority in Scotland vote for. That was the choice last year and that was the outcome. It's time the yes cam accepted this

I think you need to look a little closer to the debates.

The only people raising the Referendum are the Unionists. Sturgeon will answer questions on it, but she has never raised it.:aok:

On your point about running the country, try this for size.

14642

[speedy_gonzales]

What a load of utter garbage that statement is!
To be fair,Nicola Sturgeon herself said tonight that if the Tories were to drag Britain out of the EU against the will of the 'Scottish' people then a referendum could be justified (or words to that effect, I'm sure a truer transcript will be posted by others).

[ronaldo7]

To be fair,Nicola Sturgeon herself said tonight that if the Tories were to drag Britain out of the EU against the will of the 'Scottish' people then a referendum could be justified (or words to that effect, I'm sure a truer transcript will be posted by others).

You do know she was answering a question? I know it's unlikely of a politician to do so, so I can understand if you misunderstood.:aok:

[degenerated]

You sound paranoid mate. The country voted no and sturgeon can't let it go.

Im also a poet who didn't know it. That was unintentional lol
The only ones who appear not to be able to let it go are the unionist parties as far as I can see. It's all they go on about.

[degenerated]

Well what a non-event tonight's debate was. Hopelessly chaired. Every time Sturgeon was invited to speak she was drowned out by the other 5 (Harvie apart). It seemed like the other 5 had decided before the event that the only way to stop the SNP bandwaggon was to take it in turns to drown Sturgeon out. Having said that Nicola held her own.

From a Labour point of view I think Murphy's strategy in these debates is seriously flawed. He would be better spending some of his time having a go at the Tories rather than resorting to shouty tactics against Sturgeon. Many in Scotland see Labour as red Tories and not taking on Ruth Davidson at all in the debates just re-enforces that view.
He's not going to take on Ruth they're still working closely together 😁
1464314644

[liamh2202]

I think you need to look a little closer to the debates.

The only people raising the Referendum are the Unionists. Sturgeon will answer questions on it, but she has never raised it.:aok:

On your point about running the country, try this for size.

14642

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position

[Mikey09]

To be fair,Nicola Sturgeon herself said tonight that if the Tories were to drag Britain out of the EU against the will of the 'Scottish' people then a referendum could be justified (or words to that effect, I'm sure a truer transcript will be posted by others).


Did she raise this herself? Or was she answering yet another question re this issue??

[CropleyWasGod]

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position
Would you therefore ban Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens from standing, for having the same stance on the Union?

[liamh2202]

Would you therefore ban Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens from standing, for having the same stance on the Union?

Did I say ban? I was giving my reasons for not wanting the snp elected. It was in reply to a list of things they have done in the Scottish parliament. The point I am making is it am far more likely to vote for them in a Holyrood election than I am in a uk one..I don't want independence and I want to keep trident so does that not make sense?

[Hannah_hfc]

What a load of utter garbage that statement is!! The only people bringing it up are Better together cheerleaders. It's amazing how the Better Together campaign kept telling us how important Scotland was to the UK yet now there is a "threat" they have a big voice in Westminster they don't like it.... Oh the Irony.... :greengrin
Have the yes camp being quietly going about their business since the referendum? Not from what I have seen.

Sturgeon has refused to rule it out several times now, of course people will be wanting to know if another referendum was in her plans at all before they voted.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Funny that....the only people to bring the referendum up during these debates were better together folk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


it's a strange one, they spent months telling the yes voters to move on etc etc blah blah blah...yet they appear not to be able to move on themselves :greengrin

[Chibs]

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position

So by your reasoning you would refuse me the right to vote in a uk election unless I vote for
a unionist party.

[Mikey09]

Have the yes camp being quietly going about their business since the referendum? Not from what I have seen.

Sturgeon has refused to rule it out several times now, of course people will be wanting to know if another referendum was in her plans at all before they voted.


After the initial result yes they have. All Sturgeon has been saying is they will make damn sure they will hold Cameron and his cohorts to the promises they gave the people of Scotland. Nothing wrong with that I'm sure you'll agree. However, whenever she is debating she is asked more than once about holding another referendum, she answers honestly unlike others on the panel, and yet still that's not good enough! Us yes voters were "told" to move on and get over the result by better together for the benefit of Scotland. Now there is a chance of a proper voice in Westminster they will use every dirty trick to keep that voice from being heard. Makes no sense to me....

[Beefster]

Call me paranoid (I am) but isn't it a tad coincidental that both our weedgie based broadcasters decided to hold their debates away from yes voting Glasgow?

Folk moan about how Weegie-centric the media is. When they do something to balance that, folk raise it. Seems they can't win.

Scottish debates held in Scotland. The end.

[Moulin Yarns]

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position


Would you therefore ban Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens from standing, for having the same stance on the Union?


Did I say ban? I was giving my reasons for not wanting the snp elected. It was in reply to a list of things they have done in the Scottish parliament. The point I am making is it am far more likely to vote for them in a Holyrood election than I am in a uk one..I don't want independence and I want to keep trident so does that not make sense?


So by your reasoning you would refuse me the right to vote in a uk election unless I vote for
a unionist party.

That certainly sounds like it.

[liamh2202]

So by your reasoning you would refuse me the right to vote in a uk election unless I vote for
a unionist party.

I wouldn't refuse you the right to vote because you don't agree with me? Show me where I said that. I am giving my reasons and I'm sure you have your reasons. That's why we live in a democracy. the same way that none of the party leaders should 'speak for Scotland ' as they try and pass their opinion off as every scot.

[marinello59]

Call me paranoid (I am) but isn't it a tad coincidental that both our weedgie based broadcasters decided to hold their debates away from yes voting Glasgow?

Aberdeen is still part of Scotland and voted broadly in line with the rest of the country in the referundum. I really don't get your point here. :confused:

[speedy_gonzales]

Did she raise this herself? Or was she answering yet another question re this issue??
Does it matter how it came up? My post was in response to your previous reply that "another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something" was "a load of utter garbage".
For the record, it was brought up during the debate whilst they were discussing manifestos. Ms Sturgeon claimed she didn't know what her 2015 policy would be, never mind her 2016 policy.
When pushed when she'd possibly have another referendum after previously stating that the last would be a once in a lifetime event, she said she consider having one if the Tories forced us out of Europe.
Personally, that seems exactly like a threat because she doesn't like something.
Rather than raise the toxic threat of another independence referendum, why not push for an EU in/out referendum if that policy is so important? In fact, just to be facetious, why don't we have a referendum for EVERY major decision our elected government needs to make!

[lord bunberry]

Does it matter how it came up? My post was in response to your previous reply that "another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something" was "a load of utter garbage".
For the record, it was brought up during the debate whilst they were discussing manifestos. Ms Sturgeon claimed she didn't know what her 2015 policy would be, never mind her 2016 policy.
When pushed when she'd possibly have another referendum after previously stating that the last would be a once in a lifetime event, she said she consider having one if the Tories forced us out of Europe.
Personally, that seems exactly like a threat because she doesn't like something.
Rather than raise the toxic threat of another independence referendum, why not push for an EU in/out referendum if that policy is so important? In fact, just to be facetious, why don't we have a referendum for EVERY major decision our elected government needs to make!
Once in a generation event is what was said. It was also said that if Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but the rest of the UK voted to leave, then that would trigger another referendum.

[CropleyWasGod]

Does it matter how it came up? My post was in response to your previous reply that "another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something" was "a load of utter garbage".
For the record, it was brought up during the debate whilst they were discussing manifestos. Ms Sturgeon claimed she didn't know what her 2015 policy would be, never mind her 2016 policy.
When pushed when she'd possibly have another referendum after previously stating that the last would be a once in a lifetime event, she said she consider having one if the Tories forced us out of Europe.
Personally, that seems exactly like a threat because she doesn't like something.
Rather than raise the toxic threat of another independence referendum, why not push for an EU in/out referendum if that policy is so important? In fact, just to be facetious, why don't we have a referendum for EVERY major decision our elected government needs to make!
It wasn't her that said it would be a "once in a lifetime event" IIRC. It was Salmond, who expressed it as his own personal opinion.

[liamh2202]

Once in a generation event is what was said. It was also said that if Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but the rest of the UK voted to leave, then that would trigger another referendum.

Why should it trigger another referendum though? Any excuse as far as I can see. If it was a yes win do you think that any chance of a re run at any point?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why should it trigger another referendum though? Any excuse as far as I can see. If it was a yes win do you think that any chance of a re run at any point?
It's a pretty fundamental shift IMO.

Had the UKs exit from the EU been a certainty last September, the result may have been different. For that reason, it makes sense to ask the question again.

[liamh2202]

It's a pretty fundamental shift IMO.

Had the UKs exit from the EU been a certainty last September, the result may have been different. For that reason, it makes sense to ask the question again.

Just have to agree to disagree I think. We decided to take decisions as a uk

[liamh2202]

Why don't we just have an election everytime the governing party has a policy voted against in parliament?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why don't we just have an election everytime the governing party has a policy voted against in parliament?
That may just happen :) do you remember 1979?

[Moulin Yarns]

Just have to agree to disagree I think. We decided to take decisions as a uk

I take it you are aware that SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Greens have all said that if there is a vote on continued membership of the EU it should be on the basis that each country within the UK should vote the same way before the result should be valid. In other words, the 3 smaller countries cannot be bullied to leave the EU just because 1 larger one wants to, and vice versa of course.

[CropleyWasGod]

I take it you are aware that SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Greens have all said that if there is a vote on continued membership of the EU it should be on the basis that each country within the UK should vote the same way before the result should be valid. In other words, the 3 smaller countries cannot be bullied to leave the EU just because 1 larger one wants to, and vice versa of course.
What's the NI parties' view?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Why should it trigger another referendum though? Any excuse as far as I can see. If it was a yes win do you think that any chance of a re run at any point?

I seem to remember reading in the days following the no vote that if the UK did leave the EU that it would indeed provide sufficient cause for a 2nd referendum.

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it.

[liamh2202]

I take it you are aware that SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Greens have all said that if there is a vote on continued membership of the EU it should be on the basis that each country within the UK should vote the same way before the result should be valid. In other words, the 3 smaller countries cannot be bullied to leave the EU just because 1 larger one wants to, and vice versa of course.

Individual countries are not members of the EU though are they? The uk Is so why should it not be a uk vote? Why should it be split into individual countries? In my mind this is the exact thing I voted no for last year. UK decisions should be made by a uk majority

[lord bunberry]

Why should it trigger another referendum though? Any excuse as far as I can see. If it was a yes win do you think that any chance of a re run at any point?
Because an exit from the EU would be taking away some pretty important rights from people who may rely on them.

[liamh2202]

Because an exit from the EU would be taking away some pretty important rights from people who may rely on them.

These people would have their say in an in/out vote though. And if they are in a uk minority then surely that is democracy. at this rate we will have an independence question at every election

[ronaldo7]

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position

I agree, it's not a Scottish government election. Don't see the reason to continue bringing up last year's referendum, it seems the Unionists can't let it go though.:wink:

On your point re a party wishing to break up the Union no getting elected into government. The SNP can't at the moment as we only have 59 seats in Scotland of which the SNP have 6. Maybe when we start opening branch offices throughout Englandshire, we might have a chance.

On trident, we agree to disagree. I would rather have our conventional forces increased to allow us to at least patrol Scottish waters and not having to wait for a ship to arrive from DAN SAFF, when the ruskies are anchored off our shores. Or maybe we could get some planes to patrol our airspace in North Britain:wink:

[ronaldo7]

I see they've found oil in Englanshire. I wonder if they're just going to leave it where it is, as it's not really worth much anyway:rolleyes:

[God Petrie]

I'm struggling to understand why people mention North Korea when defending Trident.

[Moulin Yarns]

What's the NI parties' view?

Sorry, not sure. will try and find out.

[JeMeSouviens]

I seem to remember reading in the days following the no vote that if the UK did leave the EU that it would indeed provide sufficient cause for a 2nd referendum.

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it.

A second referendum will be held as soon as there is a coincidence of a comfortable and regular Yes opinion poll lead and a Yes majority in the SP, but not before.

[JeMeSouviens]

Aberdeen is still part of Scotland and voted broadly in line with the rest of the country in the referundum. I really don't get your point here. :confused:

Aberdeen was a stronger than average No, Edinburgh even more so, hence a more pro-No audience is likely. You're right that that's not a good reason not to hold debates there, but then again there's no good reason not to have debates in Dundee or Glasgow and the 3rd Scottish debate is going to be in ... Edinburgh again.

[Moulin Yarns]

Individual countries are not members of the EU though are they? The uk Is so why should it not be a uk vote? Why should it be split into individual countries? In my mind this is the exact thing I voted no for last year. UK decisions should be made by a uk majority

And that is why I voted yes. I want devolved decision making, right down to a local level.

If one large entity can decide why would the smaller ones bother, it is a case of do as you are told.

England votes to stay in, but Wales, Scotland and NI all vote to come out, then only 1, supposedly equal partner in the Union has decided for the whole UK. Democracy my archie.


On a slightly different point, the constuencies are far too big in some parts of the country.
The size of local government in Scotland (and the rUK before you ask) is far to big to be accountable. My Westminster constiuency is 1490 square miles, 64 miles across west to east, 48 miles north to south. How easy do you think that is to go canvassing in?

[JeMeSouviens]

Would you therefore ban Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens from standing, for having the same stance on the Union?

Never mind those 3, the SDLP has been committed to breaking the Union since its formation and it not only enjoys fraternal relations with UK Labour, it takes the Labour whip at Westminster!

[JeMeSouviens]

And that is why I voted yes. I want devolved decision making, right down to a local level.

If one large entity can decide why would the smaller ones bother, it is a case of do as you are told.

England votes to stay in, but Wales, Scotland and NI all vote to come out, then only 1, supposedly equal partner in the Union has decided for the whole UK. Democracy my archie.


On a slightly different point, the constuencies are far too big in some parts of the country.
The size of local government in Scotland (and the rUK before you ask) is far to big to be accountable. My Westminster constiuency is 1490 square miles, 64 miles across west to east, 48 miles north to south. How easy do you think that is to go canvassing in?

This is the glaring contradiction in Unionist politics: on the one hand we're all one nation under the Union flag, on the other we're a "family of Nations" bound in a partnership. In reality, the latter only exists in warm, fuzzy patronising propaganda. As liamh2202 is pointing out, Scotland voted itself into regional status last September and the logic of that is we must accept UK decisions until we have the balls to hold iref2, vote Yes and do something about it.

[--------]

I like a lot of things the snp have done in Scottish government. But this is not a Scottish government election. I don't believe a party who want to break up the union should be elected to the government of the union. I also disagree with their stance on trident. Just to verify my position


Would you therefore ban Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens from standing, for having the same stance on the Union?

That's what it sounds like to me. Which is a stance that deprives me of the opportunity of electing a representative to the UK Parliament who will accurately represent my views. Which is undemocratic, to say the least.



After the initial result yes they have. All Sturgeon has been saying is they will make damn sure they will hold Cameron and his cohorts to the promises they gave the people of Scotland. Nothing wrong with that I'm sure you'll agree. However, whenever she is debating she is asked more than once about holding another referendum, she answers honestly unlike others on the panel, and yet still that's not good enough! Us yes voters were "told" to move on and get over the result by better together for the benefit of Scotland. Now there is a chance of a proper voice in Westminster they will use every dirty trick to keep that voice from being heard. Makes no sense to me....

Yup. The question was asked. She answered it, and moved on to what was actually relevant to the debate. This what she always does when a Unionist drags the issue up.

Promises were made to the voters in Scotland, and someone has to hold Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and the rest to those promises. The only way for that to happen is for the Scots to send a lot more Nationalist MPs to Westminster this time than we did last. That's the only thing that'll concentrate the minds down there.



I'm struggling to understand why people mention North Korea when defending Trident.

Trident is an irrelevance, and a very expensive one. The last time the British nuclear deterrent was truly independent was in the 60's when it was the V-bomber force armed with Blue Steel. Once we replaced the bombers with Polaris the deterrent was no longer independent. It was a US system rented out by the UK and only to be used as and when the US told us we could.

So as far as Trident goes, the idea that David Cameron might decide to launch a strike against anyone (even Scotland?) without getting President Obama's permission and approval is a complete non-starter. The Pentagon wouldn't give him the launch-codes unless POTUS said they could. (The Pentagon probably doesn't know who David Cameron is, TBH.)

If CamMiliClegg REALLY wants to cut the UK budget deficit effectively, scrapping that white elephant would be a grand start. We might even be able to equip our conventional forces properly if we did.

[Moulin Yarns]

What a load of bullocks. Unfortunately I am not able to explain the launch procedure on a public forum but I can confirm we do not need us permission. We use their missiles that is it every other part of the system is our own including warheads

I'll see you bullocks and raise you some balderdash.

The UK deploys 16 Trident missiles on each of its four Vanguard-class submarines, of which one is on patrol at all times. The fleet is based at Faslane in Scotland. A further 70 missiles can be accessed from a communal pool at the Strategic Weapons facility in Georgia in the United States.

In the UK, the authority for a real (rather than test) Trident launch would have to come from the prime minister via a secure communications network.

source..the Biased Broadcasting Corporation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4438392.stm

[JeMeSouviens]

What a load of bullocks. Unfortunately I am not able to explain the launch procedure on a public forum but I can confirm we do not need us permission. We use their missiles that is it every other part of the system is our own including warheads

The launch codes bit might be pish, but can you seriously conceive of a situation* where the UK would even consider a nuclear strike the US didn't approve first?


*assuming you can first conceive a situation where they would be used at all.

[RyeSloan]

I see they've found oil in Englanshire. I wonder if they're just going to leave it where it is, as it's not really worth much anyway:rolleyes:

They actually found it before the independence vote but kept it secret....

[Moulin Yarns]

They actually found it before the independence vote but kept it secret....

Aye and they can Frack off and hold and independence for Englandshire referendum now.

[marinello59]

They actually found it before the independence vote but kept it secret....

:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Does it matter how it came up? My post was in response to your previous reply that "another referendum has become the new threat whenever the SNP don't like something" was "a load of utter garbage".
For the record, it was brought up during the debate whilst they were discussing manifestos. Ms Sturgeon claimed she didn't know what her 2015 policy would be, never mind her 2016 policy.
When pushed when she'd possibly have another referendum after previously stating that the last would be a once in a lifetime event, she said she consider having one if the Tories forced us out of Europe.
Personally, that seems exactly like a threat because she doesn't like something.
Rather than raise the toxic threat of another independence referendum, why not push for an EU in/out referendum if that policy is so important? In fact, just to be facetious, why don't we have a referendum for EVERY major decision our elected government needs to make!


The founding principle of the SNP is to gain independence for Scotland, to ask them to take the independence question from the table is like asking labour to ban trade unions. It ain't gonna happen and why should it. Democracy is and should be dynamic, the result of the referendum is only valid until the next one.

[Beefster]

I see they've found oil in Englanshire. I wonder if they're just going to leave it where it is, as it's not really worth much anyway:rolleyes:

I'll ignore the bitterness but I've noticed that 'Englandshire' is a trendy (and extremely witty) new nationalist phrasing. Did that originate from the bigot on Wings Over Scotland or is he just using it to add hilarity to his musings too?

[--------]

What a load of bullocks. Unfortunately I am not able to explain the launch procedure on a public forum but I can confirm we do not need us permission. We use their missiles that is it every other part of the system is our own including warheads


I apologise. I wasn't aware you were privy to state secrets at such a high level.

However whether we have the codes or not, if Cameron ever tried to launch those missiles without clear and explicit permission from POTUS he'd be a dead man. Unilateral use of those missiles isn't an option and you know it.

The system is a waste of time and money.

Actually, a dirty bomb in a suitcase in every British Embassy and Consulate worldwide would be much more effective.

AND cheaper. :devil:

And that idea didn't come from me. You'll find it in Butch Harris's war memoirs published around 1953. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

[QUOTE=Beefster;4343098]I'll ignore the bitterness but I've noticed that 'Englandshire' is a trendy (and extremely witty) new nationalist phrasing. Did that originate from the bigot on Wings Over Scotland or is he just using it to add hilarity to his musings too?[/QUOTE

Wrong, but don't let that stop you from your indignation.
From 2006 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Englandshire

Might be a retort to our neighbours hilarious taunts when referring to Scotland as Sweaty Sockland, Haggis Basher Country or my particular favourite simply Jockland. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more insulting.

[liamh2202]

I apologise. I wasn't aware you were privy to state secrets at such a high level.

However whether we have the codes or not, if Cameron ever tried to launch those missiles without clear and explicit permission from POTUS he'd be a dead man. Unilateral use of those missiles isn't an option and you know it.

The system is a waste of time and money.

Actually, a dirty bomb in a suitcase in every British Embassy and Consulate worldwide would be much more effective.

AND cheaper. :devil:

And that idea didn't come from me. You'll find it in Butch Harris's war memoirs published around 1953. :wink:


Not such a high level. Like I said though what is the difference between the u.s and nato? Also it's a deterrent. Do you think we would have to wait on the u.s giving us the go ahead if Russia/Iran launched one at the uk?

[Beefster]

Wrong, but don't let that stop you from your indignation.
From 2006 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Englandshire

Might be a retort to our neighbours hilarious taunts when referring to Scotland as Sweaty Sockland, Haggis Basher Country or my particular favourite simply Jockland. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more insulting.

Wrong on what? I didn't feel particularly indignant when I posted either.

Good to see the "the big boy started it" defence gets used by some folk beyond their 8th birthday too.

[--------]

I'll ignore the bitterness but I've noticed that 'Englandshire' is a trendy (and extremely witty) new nationalist phrasing. Did that originate from the bigot on Wings Over Scotland or is he just using it to add hilarity to his musings too?

Wrong, but don't let that stop you from your indignation.
From 2006 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Englandshire

Might be a retort to our neighbours hilarious taunts when referring to Scotland as Sweaty Sockland, Haggis Basher Country or my particular favourite simply Jockland. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more insulting.


Worse than 'Jockland' IMO is the refinement of 'Jocko-land' which I've heard more than once from Home Counties wide boys up here on the make.

Even HIGNFY's full of comments like, 'In Scotland a bag of chips counts as one of your five a day..." and so on.

Talk the same way about Asian or Caribbean culture and you're in court.

[--------]

Not such a high level. Like I said though what is the difference between the u.s and nato? Also it's a deterrent. Do you think we would have to wait on the u.s giving us the go ahead if Russia/Iran launched one at the uk?


Short answer? Yes.

[speedy_gonzales]

The founding principle of the SNP is to gain independence for Scotland, to ask them to take the independence question from the table is like asking labour to ban trade unions. It ain't gonna happen and why should it. Democracy is and should be dynamic, the result of the referendum is only valid until the next one.
So, like another member posted, we'll keep having referendums until we get the right result?
That isn't democracy in my book.
The SNP are doing very well just now and have gained a lot of members on the back of the referendum (although it wasn't about the SNP, was it!), the party would be best to focus on their role in the union at Westminster level and carry on with their fairly well received administration at Holyrood.
With respect to another iReferendum, I'd have no truck with ANY party setting another date if the public will was there (dunno hoe that would be accurately gauged without another vote?) but that date should be further down the line, a generation yes but not every term!

[ronaldo7]

They actually found it before the independence vote but kept it secret....

;-)

[ronaldo7]

I'll ignore the bitterness but I've noticed that 'Englandshire' is a trendy (and extremely witty) new nationalist phrasing. Did that originate from the bigot on Wings Over Scotland or is he just using it to add hilarity to his musings too?

No idea. It's been getting used for many moons. Not sure I understand your reference to bitterness, I'm very happy for them to have struck oil, good luck to them.

[Hibrandenburg]

Wrong on what? I didn't feel particularly indignant when I posted either.

Good to see the "the big boy started it" defence gets used by some folk beyond their 8th birthday too.

You did insinuate that the guy (whoever he is) on wings over Scotland might have invented the term, he didn't therefore you're wrong.

You're "wiznae me" defence isn't exactly mature either, mind you I'll forgive you if you picked it up from the Telegraph.

[Moulin Yarns]

Short answer your wrong. ;)

What is your source?

[Moulin Yarns]

Not such a high level. Like I said though what is the difference between the u.s and nato? Also it's a deterrent. Do you think we would have to wait on the u.s giving us the go ahead if Russia/Iran launched one at the uk?

The difference between the us and nato? 27 nations

[liamh2202]

The difference between the us and nato? 27 nations

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.

[degenerated]

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/04/09/jim-murphy-saviour-of-the-union-the-movie/

[Beefster]

You did insinuate that the guy (whoever he is) on wings over Scotland might have invented the term, he didn't therefore you're wrong.

You're "wiznae me" defence isn't exactly mature either, mind you I'll forgive you if you picked it up from the Telegraph.

I asked if the Stuart Campbell from WoS coined the phrase or was just using it. I didn't insinuate anything beyond him being a bigot. That's more a fact than an insinuation though.

The second paragraph, I've no idea what you're talking about so I'll just say that I form all my own opinions. I may be many things but a parrot for someone else's line isn't one of them.

[Just Alf]

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.

:hilarious:

[ronaldo7]

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.

Vladimir...Welcome home:lurksub:

[--------]

Vladimir...Welcome home:lurksub:

:thumbsup:

[Pretty Boy]

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.

Aah a pleasure to meet you Mr Bond.

[Chibs]

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.
Serious question.
Do you live in cuckcoo clock.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've probably went too deep into this already for a public forum so unfortunately I'm going to have to step back now. All I can say is my knowledge is of a professional nature.

Nice to hear you have your finger on the button, I mean pulse. Aw shoot. No, don't. Oops, what have you done.

[JeMeSouviens]

Latest Scotland poll by Yougov for the Times:

SNP 49
Lab 25
Con 18
Lib 4

The Slimebucket bounce continues. ;-)

[JeMeSouviens]

Yougov Tues leader debate (stv):

Sturgeon 56
Davidson 14
Slimebucket 13
Rennie 1 (plucky)

[ronaldo7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afRE3RwLwaE&feature=youtu.be

[hibsbollah]

Aah a pleasure to meet you Mr Bond.

:faf:

[JeMeSouviens]

I'll ignore the bitterness but I've noticed that 'Englandshire' is a trendy (and extremely witty) new nationalist phrasing. Did that originate from the bigot on Wings Over Scotland or is he just using it to add hilarity to his musings too?

Used by English SLab activists too ...

https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/586270547014713344

[JeMeSouviens]

Unnamed Lab MP quoted in the Herald:


"I'm now set to Defcon f****d."

Lolz.

[Judas Iscariot]

Serious question.
Do you live in cuckcoo clock.

:faf:

[cabbageandribs1875]

how apt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/32239182

UKIP has announced that it will scrap the "tampon tax" on women's sanitary products, if the party is elected.

[marinello59]

Latest Scotland poll by Yougov for the Times:

SNP 49
Lab 25
Con 18
Lib 4

The Slimebucket bounce continues. ;-)

We got an election leaflet from Labour through the door yesterday. It's in the form of a letter from Alistair Darling telling us the only way to stop the SNP is by voting for the Labour candidate and concentrates strongly on the work they did for a No vote. I despair, I really do, they simply don't get it.

[Hibrandenburg]

We got an election leaflet from Labour through the door yesterday. It's in the form of a letter from Alistair Darling telling us the only way to stop the SNP is by voting for the Labour candidate and concentrates strongly on the work they did for a No vote. I despair, I really do, they simply don't get it.

Think Hibbyradge might be right, it would appear they're trying to lose the election. You couldn't make it up.

[Alex Trager]

What's the deficit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Betty Boop]

how apt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/32239182

UKIP has announced that it will scrap the "tampon tax" on women's sanitary products, if the party is elected.


What a disgrace that women's sanitary products are classed as luxury items, in the first place.

[JeMeSouviens]

We got an election leaflet from Labour through the door yesterday. It's in the form of a letter from Alistair Darling telling us the only way to stop the SNP is by voting for the Labour candidate and concentrates strongly on the work they did for a No vote. I despair, I really do, they simply don't get it.

They had their chance with Neil Findlay but chose NuLab post-Thatcherite consensus "Big Beast" Westminster safe hands. All the things that got them where they are in the first place in fact. :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

Think Hibbyradge might be right, it would appear they're trying to lose the election. You couldn't make it up.

the 'right' are certainly giving Pete Wishart an easy run in my constituency. There is a tory, an independent that used to be a tory and a UKIP from Peterborough all fighting for the same votes.

[Colr]

I see they've found oil in Englanshire. I wonder if they're just going to leave it where it is, as it's not really worth much anyway:rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11525129/Billions-of-barrels-of-oil-discovered-near-Gatwick-airport.html

Quite a lot of oil. No fracking required apparently.

[ronaldo7]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11525129/Billions-of-barrels-of-oil-discovered-near-Gatwick-airport.html

Quite a lot of oil. No fracking required apparently.

:agree:Good luck to them.

[marinello59]

:agree:Good luck to them.

Actually its still us.:greengrin
Though if England want to leave the UK on the back of their oil wealth they should be allowed to. :green-grin

[ronaldo7]

Actually its still us.:greengrin
Though if England want to leave the UK on the back of their oil wealth they should be allowed to. :green-grin

You're starting to see things that aren't there:greengrin

I meant the locals, more jobs etc. :aok:

[marinello59]

You're starting to see things that aren't there:greengrin

I meant the locals, more jobs etc. :aok:

I know. :greengrin

[marinello59]

They had their chance with Neil Findlay but chose NuLab post-Thatcherite consensus "Big Beast" Westminster safe hands. All the things that got them where they are in the first place in fact. :rolleyes:

I would love to hear Labour come out with the same focussed and unapologetic statements as Nicola Sturgeon has. I've already said I will be voting SNP in this election. No doubts in my mind at all about that.
I have also said time and time again that I am finished with party politics. Sturgeon's SNP is giving me food for thought. I may just join and that would have been unthinkable under Salmond.

[steakbake]

:agree:Good luck to them.

I'm not so sure about that - it's a terrible curse, apparently, to find oil. Simply not worth the bother.

[snooky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11525129/Billions-of-barrels-of-oil-discovered-near-Gatwick-airport.html

Quite a lot of oil. No fracking required apparently.

No fracking way :shocked:

[marinello59]

I'm not so sure about that - it's a terrible curse, apparently, to find oil. Simply not worth the bother.

There can't be much because I've seen nothing on Facebook about oil executives rushing to the south of England for a top secret meeting with David Cameron. I would warn them that they need to plan on the basis that oil prices are volatile but that would simply be scaremongering. :greengrin

[steakbake]

There can't be much because I've seen nothing on Facebook about oil executives rushing to the south of England for a top secret meeting with David Cameron. I would warn them that they need to plan on the basis that oil prices are volatile but that would simply be scaremongering. :greengrin

I think I would agree with you - hopefully, they treat it as a bonus!

[cabbageandribs1875]

What a disgrace that women's sanitary products are classed as luxury items, in the first place.


totally agree, one day there will be VAT on the air we breath

[Moulin Yarns]

There can't be much because I've seen nothing on Facebook about oil executives rushing to the south of England for a top secret meeting with David Cameron. I would warn them that they need to plan on the basis that oil prices are volatile but that would simply be scaremongering. :greengrin

I'm waiting on the announcement that they are setting up an oil fund to guard against possible falls in revenue in the future :wink:

[McIntosh]

The challenge for the left is to rebuild. The current manifestation of Labour or as I prefer to think of it, "labour light" offers no coherent ideological framework to address the needs that ordinary citizens face within these islands. The SNP as a nationalist party will always be contaminated in my book by its underpinning ideology. Nationalism and socialism are fundamentally incompatible. This is not to say the SNP are not will lead or are incapable they are patently well lead and have real quality contained in their ranks. For all their faults which are plenty, they really believe it. Labour lack leadership, quality or vision. They are heading for decimation - the question is can they come back.

[Geo_1875]

The challenge for the left is to rebuild. The current manifestation of Labour or as I prefer to think of it, "labour light" offers no coherent ideological framework to address the needs that ordinary citizens face within these islands. The SNP as a nationalist party will always be contaminated in my book by its underpinning ideology. Nationalism and socialism are fundamentally incompatible. This is not to say the SNP are not will lead or are incapable they are patently well lead and have real quality contained in their ranks. For all their faults which are plenty, they really believe it. Labour lack leadership, quality or vision. They are heading for decimation - the question is can they come back.

Labour sold out in the 90's in an attempt to become electable. They hounded every socialist out of the party, or ordered them to shave their beards off and toe the line. They've gone too far right to ever attract me back.

I disagree that nationalism and socialism are incompatible. Surely an independent Scotland with successful socialist policies could stand as an example to the remainder of the UK of what can be achieved. To my mind this would be better than a perpetual struggle against the rightist tendencies of middle to southern England.

[JeMeSouviens]

The challenge for the left is to rebuild. The current manifestation of Labour or as I prefer to think of it, "labour light" offers no coherent ideological framework to address the needs that ordinary citizens face within these islands. The SNP as a nationalist party will always be contaminated in my book by its underpinning ideology. Nationalism and socialism are fundamentally incompatible. This is not to say the SNP are not will lead or are incapable they are patently well lead and have real quality contained in their ranks. For all their faults which are plenty, they really believe it. Labour lack leadership, quality or vision. They are heading for decimation - the question is can they come back.

OED defines nationalism 3 ways:



- Patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts

- An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries

- Advocacy of political independence for a particular country


Statements like yours attempt to equate the SNP with the middle definition. While I wouldn't deny that there are nutters among the SNP who would fit that profile*, they are an insignificant minority who have little to no influence on the policies or priorities of the party as a whole.

Otoh, even if you are a wild, woolly and wacky true believer internationalist, you have to recognise that you are not going to be able to sweep away the world's borders. It therefore follows that we are going to have to belong to one country or another, we have to draw a line somewhere. So then it comes to down to a choice of country. Do you want to belong to a class-ridden, fading ex-great power with a hugely over centralised concentration of power that will barely notice you exist (unless you threaten they'll have to move their big shiny weapons) or a small, modern European social democracy?

The opportunity to implement anything approaching social justice in the UK is nil. There is some chance in a future quasi-federal or independent Scotland (though not necessarily by the SNP).

* and there are far more nutters among Unionism in general that feel that way about Britannia ruling the waves.

[Kato]

Labour sold out in the 90's in an attempt to become electable. They hounded every socialist out of the party, or ordered them to shave their beards off and toe the line. They've gone too far right to ever attract me back.



I disagree that nationalism and socialism are incompatible. Surely an independent Scotland with successful socialist policies could stand as an example to the remainder of the UK of what can be achieved. To my mind this would be better than a perpetual struggle against the rightist tendencies of middle to southern England.


Making the socialist policies successful will be the hardest thing.

[Kato]

Statements like yours attempt to equate the SNP with the middle definition. While I wouldn't deny that there are nutters among the SNP who would fit that profile*, they are an insignificant minority who have little to no influence on the policies or priorities of the party as a whole.


.


That's the way things stand at the moment. What if a few years down the line we still have a neo-liberal Westminster Govt ruling Scotland and the SNP have failed to deliver independence? It only takes a couple of conferences to overturn the partys' leaders and a few pulls on the emotions for the racists to take hold. From what I see of the SNP's new intake of members a lot of it, not all, is very emotionally motivated.

I'll probably vote SNP this time round in the hope of introducing an irritant into Westminster, but I'd never join a party that has nationalism at its core.

No matter what people say now about Nationalism things change very swiftly and the bigots take hold surreptitiously.

[Hibrandenburg]

That's the way things stand at the moment. What if a few years down the line we still have a neo-liberal Westminster Govt ruling Scotland and the SNP have failed to deliver independence? It only takes a couple of conferences to overturn the partys' leaders and a few pulls on the emotions for the racists to take hold. From what I see of the SNP's new intake of members a lot of it, not all, is very emotionally motivated.

I'll probably vote SNP this time round in the hope of introducing an irritant into Westminster, but I'd never join a party that has nationalism at its core.

No matter what people say now about Nationalism things change very swiftly and the bigots take hold surreptitiously.


If Scotland was an independent nation and there was a party calling themselves nationalists then I'd maybe agree with you, but we're not and the nationalist in SNP means nothing more than the wish to be a self governing independent nation. I suspect you already know this but prefer to try and make something maleviolent out of it to your own ends.

[Just Alf]

If Scotland was an independent nation and there was a party calling themselves nationalists then I'd maybe agree with you, but we're not and the nationalist in SNP means nothing more than the wish to be a self governing independent nation. I suspect you already know this but prefer to try and make something maleviolent out of it to your own ends.

A lot of folk seem to do this...... Don't get it myself.

[Kato]

If Scotland was an independent nation and there was a party calling themselves nationalists then I'd maybe agree with you, but we're not and the nationalist in SNP means nothing more than the wish to be a self governing independent nation. I suspect you already know this but prefer to try and make something maleviolent out of it to your own ends.


Not to my ends, just a matter of fact. There is very little malevolence within the ranks of the SNP as it stands - at the moment. Saying that there is resentment of varying kinds.

All I'm saying is nationalism can be a twisted force and any form of nationalism can be twisted and tuned pretty quickly and easily. If you find that easy to deny just look to history for examples.

I don't have any "ends" to suit other than getting rid of the neo-liberal outlook of the current major parties and ending the idea that Thatcher's outlook on economics was fair, it never was and never will be.

Whether that's within the Uk or an independent Scotland doesn't really bother me. As I've said om here before I don't really like borders so am not to concerned about making any new ones.

[Kato]

A lot of folk seem to do this...... Don't get it myself.


If you don't accept that nationalism of any hue can be turned to hatred and bigotry you don't look very deeply.

[steakbake]

A lot of folk seem to do this...... Don't get it myself.

Yes, it's the Scottish National Party (official name). It's not the Scottish Nationalist Party.

[Just Alf]

Not to my ends, just a matter of fact. There is very little malevolence within the ranks of the SNP as it stands - at the moment. Saying that there is resentment of varying kinds.

All I'm saying is nationalism can be a twisted force and any form of nationalism can be twisted and tuned pretty quickly and easily. If you find that easy to deny just look to history for examples.

I don't have any "ends" to suit other than getting rid of the neo-liberal outlook of the current major parties and ending the idea that Thatcher's outlook on economics was fair, it never was and never will be.

Whether that's within the Uk or an independent Scotland doesn't really bother me. As I've said om here before I don't really like borders so am not to concerned about making any new ones.

I get that, and my quote isn't really aimed your direction..... It's more general :agree:

[Just Alf]

If you don't accept that nationalism of any hue can be turned to hatred and bigotry you don't look very deeply.

Oh :-(


I do know my history, and yes, it "could" get VERY bad, we're not there though and hopefully there's enough of us intelligent enough to spot it happening.

[steakbake]

Oh :-(


I do know my history, and yes, it "could" get VERY bad, we're not there though and hopefully there's enough of us intelligent enough to spot it happening.

The same could be said of any political persuasion if taken to extremes. Socialism taken to extremes leads to gulags, goose steps and politburos. Conservatism take to extremes leads to dictators, military juntas and dissidents disappearing never to be seen again.

[Just Alf]

The same could be said of any political persuasion if taken to extremes. Socialism taken to extremes leads to gulags, goose steps and politburos. Conservatism take to extremes leads to dictators, military juntas and dissidents disappearing never to be seen again.

Agree... I'm on my phone so wasn't gonna type "millions" :D

[NAE NOOKIE]

If you don't accept that nationalism of any hue can be turned to hatred and bigotry you don't look very deeply.

That is true .... however nationalism of the Scottish kind is probably no different from an American sticking a starts & stripes up on his porch or an Irishman celebrating St Patrick's day. The type of sinister nationalism as in Nazi Germany or some of the ex Yugoslavian states is as far removed from what I as a Scottish nationalist believe in as its possible to get.

I'm not saying for a second Kato that you think otherwise. But there is no doubt that there are some out there who love to perpetuate the myth that Scottish nationalism is based on hatred of the English and do so because it suits their own ends.

Anybody who bases their national pride in Scotland on a feeling of superiority over other nations cant have watched our football or rugby teams in action over the last 10 years :greengrin

[Kato]

Oh :-(


I do know my history, and yes, it "could" get VERY bad, we're not there though and hopefully there's enough of us intelligent enough to spot it happening.


That's what I said "could" . Emotions sometimes override intelligence and the SNP's following is very emotional. I just choose not to be part of it in spite of agreeing with a lot of what is being said, being said rather than what is being felt. I don't feel "nationalistic".

[McIntosh]

Labour sold out in the 90's in an attempt to become electable. They hounded every socialist out of the party, or ordered them to shave their beards off and toe the line. They've gone too far right to ever attract me back.

I disagree that nationalism and socialism are incompatible. Surely an independent Scotland with successful socialist policies could stand as an example to the remainder of the UK of what can be achieved. To my mind this would be better than a perpetual struggle against the rightist tendencies of middle to southern England.

I agree with the first paragraph completely. I always say Labour left I never left it. The sentiments of the second I can concur with but logically should we not be leading our English brother and sisters to a better democratic socialist path.

[McIntosh]

OED defines nationalism 3 ways:



Statements like yours attempt to equate the SNP with the middle definition. While I wouldn't deny that there are nutters among the SNP who would fit that profile*, they are an insignificant minority who have little to no influence on the policies or priorities of the party as a whole.

Otoh, even if you are a wild, woolly and wacky true believer internationalist, you have to recognise that you are not going to be able to sweep away the world's borders. It therefore follows that we are going to have to belong to one country or another, we have to draw a line somewhere. So then it comes to down to a choice of country. Do you want to belong to a class-ridden, fading ex-great power with a hugely over centralised concentration of power that will barely notice you exist (unless you threaten they'll have to move their big shiny weapons) or a small, modern European social democracy?

The opportunity to implement anything approaching social justice in the UK is nil. There is some chance in a future quasi-federal or independent Scotland (though not necessarily by the SNP).

* and there are far more nutters among Unionism in general that feel that way about Britannia ruling the waves.

I agree with a lot of your sentiments. I was not alluding to any definition of nationalism - to me it is really an alien concept. As I have got older I don't even consider myself Scottish let alone British. I just try first and foremore to be a human-being. I do forsee a federation as the nineteenth century Westminster model seems to be well and truly broken. I also think that several of the current political forms will cease to exist in their current form and we may well see mergers and realignments after this election.

[Pretty Boy]

I agree with the first paragraph completely. I always say Labour left I never left it. The sentiments of the second I can concur with but logically should we not be leading our English brother and sisters to a better democratic socialist path.

I think I stopped believing in a universal socialist struggle the day I walked out of university for the last time. It was quite sad to see so many Labour supporters talking about about our 'English brothers and sisters' during the referendum. It really means nothing.

It's a wonderful thought and idea but it's never going to happen.

[McIntosh]

I think I stopped believing in a universal socialist struggle the day I walked out of university for the last time. It was quite sad to see so many Labour supporters talking about about our 'English brothers and sisters' during the referendum. It really means nothing.

It's a wonderful thought and idea but it's never going to happen.

But PB they quite literally and figuratively are. I only see a common struggle, particularly in the deindustrialised north of England and the deindustralised South of Scotland. Nations and nationalism while patently powerful are completely artificial constructs and which globalisation have rendered insignificant economically.

[Kato]

That is true .... however nationalism of the Scottish kind is probably no different from an American sticking a starts & stripes up on his porch or an Irishman celebrating St Patrick's day..





That's where it is just now, with a smidgen of resentment underneath.


Go back 70 years and Scottish Nationalism was a different beast to what it was in the 1970's and that was different to where we are at now. All I'm saying is things change. I keep getting "we are not like that" back but things change. Otherwise, if they didn't, all SNP members would be wearing Blueshirts and falling into line behind Hugh MacDiarmid's bigoted outlook.


Who could have guessed a year ago that the SNP's membership would have bludgeoned to where it is now? No one saw that coming.

[Pretty Boy]

But PB they quite literally and figuratively are. I only see a common struggle, particularly in the deindustrialised north of England and the deindustralised South of Scotland. Nations and nationalism while patently powerful are completely artificial constructs and which globalisation have rendered insignificant economically.

I wouldn't dispute that there are similarities between the problems faced by the 'working class' in Scotland and England.

However the idea of a global workers struggle is an outdated concept that Labour need to move on from. Many Labour activists still seem to think of working class people as toiling in factories or down pits whilst their fat cat bosses smoke cigars and vote Tory. The truth is that many working class folk now work in offices or for banks and have disposable income and earn bonuses. Others own small businesses, work in sales earning commission, a lot are University educated and work in 'professional' occupations some own 2 cars, own their own homes, have private pensions and holiday abroad. The struggles faced by people like that are far removed from the 'working class' in say the Indian subcontinent or South America. The struggles of the working class in Edinburgh are different from those in East Kilbride I dare say.

The notion of a common struggle is a noble one but it's flawed. Given the support enjoyed by UKIP in many former Labour heartlands in England it appears our brothers and sisters are quite happy to resent things such as free prescriptions and no tuition fees we enjoy in Scotland rather than standing up and demanding the same for themselves. Not much brotherly love there.

[lord bunberry]

That's where it is just now, with a smidgen of resentment underneath.


Go back 70 years and Scottish Nationalism was a different beast to what it was in the 1970's and that was different to where we are at now. All I'm saying is things change. I keep getting "we are not like that" back but things change. Otherwise, if they didn't, all SNP members would be wearing Blueshirts and falling into line behind Hugh MacDiarmid's bigoted outlook.


Who could have guessed a year ago that the SNP's membership would have bludgeoned to where it is now? No one saw that coming.
I think you're being a bit selective, 70 years ago socialism and conservatism was completely different to what it is today. Scottish nationalism has evolved and moved with the times to become the only all encompassing movement around in this country. Every other party(excluding the greens) is trying to cut immigration or make cuts to the most vulnerable in our society.
You're painting an absolute worse case scenario that could be applied to socialism and conservatism.

[McIntosh]

I wouldn't dispute that there are similarities between the problems faced by the 'working class' in Scotland and England.

However the idea of a global workers struggle is an outdated concept that Labour need to move on from. Many Labour activists still seem to think of working class people as toiling in factories or down pits whilst their fat cat bosses smoke cigars and vote Tory. The truth is that many working class folk now work in offices or for banks and have disposable income and earn bonuses. Others own small businesses, work in sales earning commission, a lot are University educated and work in 'professional' occupations some own 2 cars, own their own homes, have private pensions and holiday abroad. The struggles faced by people like that are far removed from the 'working class' in say the Indian subcontinent or South America. The struggles of the working class in Edinburgh are different from those in East Kilbride I dare say.

The notion of a common struggle is a noble one but it's flawed. Given the support enjoyed by UKIP in many former Labour heartlands in England it appears our brothers and sisters are quite happy to resent things such as free prescriptions and no tuition fees we enjoy in Scotland rather than standing up and demanding the same for themselves. Not much brotherly love there.

I think Labour clearly has moved on from the views you outlined - dramatically so. That is a problem in itself. BP as I type this I am quite literally standing outside the Houses of Parliament and as I was pondering your points I remembered the rise of the far right in Leith in the 1930s, particularly Protestant Action. This working class party blamed immigrants for the demands of services exactly like UKIP. What we have to remember is the circumstances nationalist parties rise. They become strong during times of economic strain - the 1970s and now. What the left must offer is a programme of work! What the SNP offer is a variation on neo-liberalism economics. The people that share this small island need to work together t is as simple or as complicated as that.

[Kato]

I think you're being a bit selective, 70 years ago socialism and conservatism was completely different to what it is today. Scottish nationalism has evolved and moved with the times to become the only all encompassing movement around in this country. Every other party(excluding the greens) is trying to cut immigration or make cuts to the most vulnerable in our society.
You're painting an absolute worse case scenario that could be applied to socialism and conservatism.


I was being random to portray how things change, so you're being a tad para.

[Pretty Boy]

I think Labour clearly has moved on from the views you outlined - dramatically so. That is a problem in itself. BP as I type this I am quite literally standing outside the Houses of Parliament and as I was pondering your points I remembered the rise of the far right in Leith in the 1930s, particularly Protestant Action. This working class party blamed immigrants for the demands of services exactly like UKIP. What we have to remember is the circumstances nationalist parties rise. They become strong during times of economic strain - the 1970s and now. What the left must offer is a programme of work! What the SNP offer is a variation on neo-liberalism economics. The people that share this small island need to work together t is as simple or as complicated as that.

I absolutely get that Labour as a party have moved on.

However their public campaign is very much stuck in the 'keep the Tories out' age. Rather than tackle the rise of the SNP head on in Scotland with progressive, leftist policies they have chosen to pursue a Vote SNP get Tory scare campaign. The fight for the middle ground in British politics is tedious and it's little wonder people are searching for alternatives.

I'm not inherently anti Labour, I was a party member for several years, but at this moment I am completely disillusioned with the lack of a progressive voice from within the party. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there was a chance to bring in a fresh face to lead the party in Scotland, we got Jim Murphy. That says a lot imo.

[McIntosh]

I absolutely get that Labour as a party have moved on.

However their public campaign is very much stuck in the 'keep the Tories out' age. Rather than tackle the rise of the SNP head on in Scotland with progressive, leftist policies they have chosen to pursue a Vote SNP get Tory scare campaign. The fight for the middle ground in British politics is tedious and it's little wonder people are searching for alternatives.

I'm not inherently anti Labour, I was a party member for several years, but at this moment I am completely disillusioned with the lack of a progressive voice from within the party. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there was a chance to bring in a fresh face to lead the party in Scotland, we got Jim Murphy. That says a lot imo.

My friend I could not agree more with you. We are in the same boat. I despair when I see light weight Labour politician like Cameron Day (who I know) come out with this unimaginative twaddle. We really need a contemporary left-wing vision which is confident, coherent are articulate. What we are offered is just fear mongering. I despair.

[Kato]

I absolutely get that Labour as a party have moved on.



However their public campaign is very much stuck in the 'keep the Tories out' age. Rather than tackle the rise of the SNP head on in Scotland with progressive, leftist policies they have chosen to pursue a Vote SNP get Tory scare campaign. The fight for the middle ground in British politics is tedious and it's little wonder people are searching for alternatives.



I'm not inherently anti Labour, I was a party member for several years, but at this moment I am completely disillusioned with the lack of a progressive voice from within the party. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there was a chance to bring in a fresh face to lead the party in Scotland, we got Jim Murphy. That says a lot imo.


Tories and Labour are politically hamstrung. The both embrace a loose free market version of Thatcherism otherwise the press would be down on them. They cannot allow themselves to be seen as even slightly radical because of this and because they have zero imagination to allow them to see that there might even be another way. Given the amount of power they have handed over to the EU this renders the election battle ground down to things like how people eat a sandwich, or how many kitchens they have among other such trivia.

Two sets of toffs splatting ink blots at each other.

[Future17]

That's where it is just now, with a smidgen of resentment underneath.


Go back 70 years and Scottish Nationalism was a different beast to what it was in the 1970's and that was different to where we are at now. All I'm saying is things change. I keep getting "we are not like that" back but things change. Otherwise, if they didn't, all SNP members would be wearing Blueshirts and falling into line behind Hugh MacDiarmid's bigoted outlook.


Who could have guessed a year ago that the SNP's membership would have bludgeoned to where it is now? No one saw that coming.

I think (and hope) you mean "burgeoned". :greengrin

[Kato]

I think (and hope) you mean "burgeoned". :greengrin


Yup! :')

[Colr]

What a disgrace that women's sanitary products are classed as luxury items, in the first place.

Toilet paper is also a luxury item for VAT. As are razor blades.

[BroxburnHibee]

I absolutely get that Labour as a party have moved on.

However their public campaign is very much stuck in the 'keep the Tories out' age. Rather than tackle the rise of the SNP head on in Scotland with progressive, leftist policies they have chosen to pursue a Vote SNP get Tory scare campaign. The fight for the middle ground in British politics is tedious and it's little wonder people are searching for alternatives.

I'm not inherently anti Labour, I was a party member for several years, but at this moment I am completely disillusioned with the lack of a progressive voice from within the party. As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there was a chance to bring in a fresh face to lead the party in Scotland, we got Jim Murphy. That says a lot imo.

The scare tactics worked at the referendum. It's not surprising at all that both Labour and Tory are using the same tactic against the SNP.

[Kato]

The scare tactics worked at the referendum. It's not surprising at all that both Labour and Tory are using the same tactic against the SNP.


Do you think there wwould have been a Yes vote without the scare tactics?

[Hibbyradge]

Do you think there wwould have been a Yes vote without the scare tactics?

I'm convinced of it.

[Kato]

I'm convinced of it.


Do you have the stats to back up your convincement?

[marinello59]

The scare tactics worked at the referendum. It's not surprising at all that both Labour and Tory are using the same tactic against the SNP.

The 'scare' tactics didn't work. Yes was behind by a massive distance when the campaign started, it was a remarkable achievement to get it that close. The assumption that people only voted No because they were fooled somehow doesn't ring true for me. People voted No mainly because they wished to remain part of the UK.
The Scottish electorate as a whole are not daft. Nothing that Labour and the Tories throw at the SNP between now and polling day will significantly change the result.

[Just Alf]

The 'scare' tactics didn't work. Yes was behind by a massive distance when the campaign started, it was a remarkable achievement to get it that close. The assumption that people only voted No because they were fooled somehow doesn't ring true for me. People voted No mainly because they wished to remain part of the UK.
The Scottish electorate as a whole are not daft. Nothing that Labour and the Tories throw at the SNP between now and polling day will significantly change the result.

I broadly agree however my in laws both voted no because they were told their pensions would be lower.

[marinello59]

I broadly agree however my in laws both voted no because they were told their pensions would be lower.

Was it just because they were told that or was it because after weighing up the arguments from both sides they felt the No argument was stronger and as pensioners they would be better off remaining in the UK. The assumption that Scots didn't make informed decisions, whether I agreed or not, really bugs me.

[Hibrandenburg]

Was it just because they were told that or was it because after weighing up the arguments from both sides they felt the No argument was stronger and as pensioners they would be better off remaining in the UK. The assumption that Scots didn't make informed decisions, whether I agreed or not, really bugs me.

Is it still an informed decision if the information you've been given is false or is it a misinformed decision?

[Kato]

Is it still an informed decision if the information you've been given is false or is it a misinformed decision?


Do you think everyone who voted no did so out of misinformation or fear?

[Hibrandenburg]

Do you think everyone who voted no did so out of misinformation or fear?

Not everyone but enough to sway the vote.

[Beefster]

Not everyone but enough to sway the vote.

Rubbish.

It's not fashionable to like or even respect the Scottish electorate but they're a pretty intelligent bunch. The vast majority didn't fall for either the scare tactics or the 'land of milk and honey' nonsense like independence eradicating poverty.

[Moulin Yarns]

Was it just because they were told that or was it because after weighing up the arguments from both sides they felt the No argument was stronger and as pensioners they would be better off remaining in the UK. The assumption that Scots didn't make informed decisions, whether I agreed or not, really bugs me.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55ZeZU4w

too wee, too poor, too stupid
http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/toopoor.html

[Hibrandenburg]

Rubbish.

It's not fashionable to like or even respect the Scottish electorate but they're a pretty intelligent bunch. The vast majority didn't fall for either the scare tactics or the 'land of milk and honey' nonsense like independence eradicating poverty.

Meanwhile back in the real world a huge number of people voted depending on their religion, football team, nationality or what tabloid they buy to look at naked breasts or read their horoscopes. There's also a huge number follow political parties blindly because their father's and their father's before them did. None of these reasons are imo an intelligent or informed reason to base a political opinion upon but I'd wager many did. Whilst I respect your choice to believe that the Scottish electorate are an intelligent bunch, nothing you say will convince me that there's not a large amount of headbangers out there whose only only qualification to vote is that they've successfully managed to reach the age of 18 without removing themselves from the gene pool.

[Kato]

Meanwhile back in the real world a huge number of people voted depending on their religion, football team, nationality or what tabloid they buy to look at naked breasts or read their horoscopes. There's also a huge number follow political parties blindly because their father's and their father's before them did. None of these reasons are imo an intelligent or informed reason to base a political opinion upon but I'd wager many did. Whilst I respect your choice to believe that the Scottish electorate are an intelligent bunch, nothing you say will convince me that there's not a large amount of headbangers out there whose only only qualification to vote is that they've successfully managed to reach the age of 18 without removing themselves from the gene pool.


Luckily for us on here we have bright sparks like you to tell us mugs what's what.

[Kato]

Not everyone but enough to sway the vote.


Could you put figures on that? Any actual evidence?

[Hibrandenburg]

Luckily for us on here we have bright sparks like you to tell us mugs what's what.

If you feel the cap fits then you're welcome to it, however I agree with you when you say we have a lot of bright sparks on here.

[Hibrandenburg]

Could you put figures on that? Any actual evidence?

Could you prove I'm wrong?

[Kato]

Could you prove I'm wrong?


I'm not saying your wrong.

[Kato]

If you feel the cap fits then you're welcome to it, however I agree with you when you say we have a lot of bright sparks on here.



By the same token it could be said that Yes voters did so on the back of promises of never-ending benefits, free unicorns and an Oil boom that lasted forever.



I think you describe part of the electorate above, but a small part, no way a majority and that most people in Scotland are capable, in the face of your own arrogance, of giving their voting preferences due consideration.

[Beefster]

Meanwhile back in the real world a huge number of people voted depending on their religion, football team, nationality or what tabloid they buy to look at naked breasts or read their horoscopes. There's also a huge number follow political parties blindly because their father's and their father's before them did. None of these reasons are imo an intelligent or informed reason to base a political opinion upon but I'd wager many did. Whilst I respect your choice to believe that the Scottish electorate are an intelligent bunch, nothing you say will convince me that there's not a large amount of headbangers out there whose only only qualification to vote is that they've successfully managed to reach the age of 18 without removing themselves from the gene pool.

Staggering. TBH, you're not the first independence supporter I've seen to come across as if he actually detests the Scottish people.

[marinello59]

Is it still an informed decision if the information you've been given is false or is it a misinformed decision?

I voted Yes. Are you suggesting I did so because I was misinformed or does that only apply to No voters?

[Hibrandenburg]

By the same token it could be said that Yes voters did so on the back of promises of never-ending benefits, free unicorns and an Oil boom that lasted forever.



I think you describe part of the electorate above, but a small part, no way a majority and that most people in Scotland are capable, in the face of your own arrogance, of giving their voting preferences due consideration.

Where did I mention a majority? You're making things up now

[Hibrandenburg]

Staggering. TBH, you're not the first independence supporter I've seen to come across as if he actually detests the Scottish people.

If that's how you perceive what I say then it's because you want to. But you're wrong.

[marinello59]

Meanwhile back in the real world a huge number of people voted depending on their religion, football team, nationality or what tabloid they buy to look at naked breasts or read their horoscopes. There's also a huge number follow political parties blindly because their father's and their father's before them did. None of these reasons are imo an intelligent or informed reason to base a political opinion upon but I'd wager many did. Whilst I respect your choice to believe that the Scottish electorate are an intelligent bunch, nothing you say will convince me that there's not a large amount of headbangers out there whose only only qualification to vote is that they've successfully managed to reach the age of 18 without removing themselves from the gene pool.

A large amount of the Scottish electorate are too stupid too agree with your view point then? Wow.
Your contempt for your fellow Scots is staggering. If a Better Together supporter had come out with stuff like this you would have been frothing at the mouth and rightly so.

[Hibrandenburg]

I voted Yes. Are you suggesting I did so because I was misinformed or does that only apply to No voters?

Stab in the dark here coz I don't know you but I'll take a guess and say no. Like the vast majority on here I'd guess you'd made up your mind based on what you assessed to be best for you and yours based on your personal circumstances and what information you had to hand. I'd also take a stab in the dark and say you didn't base your decision on opinions of others in the media. But there would have been many who did and it stands to reason the vote that was mostly influenced was the no vote considering that most of the press and media were backing no.

[Hibrandenburg]

Staggering. TBH, you're not the first independence supporter I've seen to come across as if he actually detests the Scottish people.

If that's how you perceive what I say then it's because you want to. But you're wrong.

[marinello59]

If that's how you perceive what I say then it's because you want to. But you're wrong.

I suspect you meant to quote me there rather than quoting Beefster again.
So you are wrong.:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

A large amount of the Scottish electorate are too stupid too agree with your view point then? Wow.
Your contempt for your fellow Scots is staggering. If a Better Together supporter had come out with stuff like this you would have been frothing at the mouth and rightly so.

Not what I said and you know it. My original statement was a question to you asking if it was possible to have made a wrong decision based on false information. There was a hell of a lot of mischief making by the big three towards the end of the campaign and if you have accepted what went on then good for you.

Contempt for my fellow Scots? Really? Despair at gullibility is how I'd put it.

[Hibrandenburg]

I suspect you meant to quote me there rather than quoting Beefster again.
So you are wrong.:greengrin

No I meant to quote him, but then again I'll admit to having trouble telling you apart sometimes :greengrin

[marinello59]

Not what I said and you know it. My original statement was a question to you asking if it was possible to have made a wrong decision based on false information. There was a hell of a lot of mischief making by the big three towards the end of the campaign and if you have accepted what went on then good for you.

Contempt for my fellow Scots? Really? Despair at gullibility is how I'd put it.

If people come to a different conclusion from you they are gullible? Keep digging. :greengrin
The Scottish electorate was and is more than capable of seeing through any bull. If you chose to accept they are not then I wonder why you want Independence in the first place.

[marinello59]

No I meant to quote him, but then again I'll admit to having trouble telling you apart sometimes :greengrin

It's easy. He is wrong too for voting No. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

If people come to a different conclusion from you they are gullible? Keep digging. :greengrin
The Scottish electorate was and is more than capable of seeing through any bull. If you chose to accept they are not then I wonder why you want Independence in the first place.

Again you didn't get it or more likely you're mischief making. Put very simply, if you believe what you read in the newspapers then you're gullible. Now stop you're mischievous larky and just agree with me so I can get back to watching the golf. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

It's easy. He is wrong too for voting No. :greengrin

You'd start a fight in an empty room :greengrin

[marinello59]

Again you didn't get it or more likely you're mischief making. Put very simply, if you believe what you read in the newspapers then you're gullible. Now stop you're mischievous larky and just agree with me so I can get back to watching the golf. :wink:

Golf? I'll just argue with the wife then until you get back. :greengrin

[Just Alf]

Was it just because they were told that or was it because after weighing up the arguments from both sides they felt the No argument was stronger and as pensioners they would be better off remaining in the UK. The assumption that Scots didn't make informed decisions, whether I agreed or not, really bugs me.

They thought about it but believed the guy that knocked on the door when he told them they would be worse off if we were independent :rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

I broadly agree however my in laws both voted no because they were told their pensions would be lower.

14665

[ronaldo7]

By the same token it could be said that Yes voters did so on the back of promises of never-ending benefits, free unicorns and an Oil boom that lasted forever.

Could you provide evidence for the comment above:wink:

I think you describe part of the electorate above, but a small part, no way a majority and that most people in Scotland are capable, in the face of your own arrogance, of giving their voting preferences due consideration.

.

[McIntosh]

The fact, the simple fact is the Scottish people choose to remain part of the United Kingdom. The consequence of that decision has not seen greater support for unionist parties but the SNP. I expect this election to be their high water mark. I fully expect Labour in Scotland to rebuild. However, they will not rebuild successfully with people like Murphy or the tired Blairite policies. If it is to recapture all it has been it must return to itself. The SNP are not to my taste, not because they are bad or incapable but they do not have an original or truly progressive policy to seriously address both deindustralisation and in consequences. This will mean producing a policy which guarantees cheap energy and a plan for upgrading infracture within Scotland and the North of England.

[Future17]

This thread appears to have gone off at a fairly pointless tangent.

I guess the truth is we'll never really know the reason why people voted the way they did in the referendum, regardless of whether they voted "yes" or "no". Even a significant number of people who volunteered this information when asked post-poll could be considered to perhaps provide unreliable responses.

It's only human nature that those supporting a "yes" vote would look at what they considered to be the worst aspects of the "no" campaign's activities and blame those aspects for "no" voters voting the way they did. The same will be true in reverse for those supporting a "no" vote looking at those who voted "yes". This approach allows for a sense of injustice, indignation and, to an extent, superiority...which we all enjoy feeling to some extent to justify why we are right and others are wrong.

The 2014 referendum is done. The next one, if it comes as it likely will, may be in 2 years or 20 years, but when it comes it will be for those still here to decide if their 2014 vote was correct and whether that affects how they will vote at that time.

In the meantime, there's a very interesting general election campaign going on...

[lord bunberry]

The fact, the simple fact is the Scottish people choose to remain part of the United Kingdom. The consequence of that decision has not seen greater support for unionist parties but the SNP. I expect this election to be their high water mark. I fully expect Labour in Scotland to rebuild. However, they will not rebuild successfully with people like Murphy or the tired Blairite policies. If it is to recapture all it has been it must return to itself. The SNP are not to my taste, not because they are bad or incapable but they do not have an original or truly progressive policy to seriously address both deindustralisation and in consequences. This will mean producing a policy which guarantees cheap energy and a plan for upgrading infracture within Scotland and the North of England.
We have been waiting for Labour to rebuild in Scotland for a long time now. I would also like to see Labour return to itself, but I'm not sure Labour knows what itself is anymore.

[marinello59]

This thread appears to have gone off at a fairly pointless tangent.

I guess the truth is we'll never really know the reason why people voted the way they did in the referendum, regardless of whether they voted "yes" or "no". Even a significant number of people who volunteered this information when asked post-poll could be considered to perhaps provide unreliable responses.

It's only human nature that those supporting a "yes" vote would look at what they considered to be the worst aspects of the "no" campaign's activities and blame those aspects for "no" voters voting the way they did. The same will be true in reverse for those supporting a "no" vote looking at those who voted "yes". This approach allows for a sense of injustice, indignation and, to an extent, superiority...which we all enjoy feeling to some extent to justify why we are right and others are wrong.

The 2014 referendum is done. The next one, if it comes as it likely will, may be in 2 years or 20 years, but when it comes it will be for those still here to decide if their 2014 vote was correct and whether that affects how they will vote at that time.

In the meantime, there's a very interesting general election campaign going on...

Well said.

[Hibbyradge]

Do you have the stats to back up your convincement?

lol

[Colr]

We have been waiting for Labour to rebuild in Scotland for a long time now. I would also like to see Labour return to itself, but I'm not sure Labour knows what itself is anymore.

How does one rebuild Scotland exactly?

[marinello59]

How does one rebuild Scotland exactly?

Lego.

[DaveF]

What an absolute rabble on politics Scotland with all 4 leaders this morning. The presenter seemed happy to let them all shout over each other at the same time, so little wonder people cannot be bothered with politics.

[Hibbyradge]

What an absolute rabble on politics Scotland with all 4 leaders this morning. The presenter seemed happy to let them all shout over each other at the same time, so little wonder people cannot be bothered with politics.

Exactly. I switched off because of it.

It's getting boring now.

[Chibs]

What an absolute rabble on politics Scotland with all 4 leaders this morning. The presenter seemed happy to let them all shout over each other at the same time, so little wonder people cannot be bothered with politics.

Totally agree with you.
Four spoiled brat's squealing at each other.
****ing pathetic.

[speedy_gonzales]

But there would have been many who did and it stands to reason the vote that was mostly influenced was the no vote considering that most of the press and media were backing no.
Let's not forget 'social' media.
Bearing in mind social media is usually based on your 'friends', Most of the posts I read were pro Yes, and the contents of which
ranged from cold hard facts(financial/political) to blind propaganda and childish observations, naw-bags, red-Tories etc. There seemed to be an undercurrent of ridicule of those that dared put there head above the parapet and proclaim a support for a NO vote whilst those that wished to vote YES could do so quite freely, online, in the window, on the car bumper.
There are many streams of information out there, not just the fourth estate!

[Moulin Yarns]

How does one rebuild Scotland exactly?

Read the post again. It's about the labour party in Scotland, not the country.

Jeez

[degenerated]

What an absolute rabble on politics Scotland with all 4 leaders this morning. The presenter seemed happy to let them all shout over each other at the same time, so little wonder people cannot be bothered with politics.
I'm no sure who the boy brewer is standing for but that presenter, Murphy, didnt let him get a word in it all.

[Hibrandenburg]

What an absolute rabble on politics Scotland with all 4 leaders this morning. The presenter seemed happy to let them all shout over each other at the same time, so little wonder people cannot be bothered with politics.

Was a bit like watching three drunks jump a tea totaler outside the pub with the polis sat in the car watching. Embarrassing.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thank goodness I was out campaigning in Aberfeldy and Pitlochry

[Mibbes Aye]

Meanwhile back in the real world a huge number of people voted depending on their religion, football team, nationality or what tabloid they buy to look at naked breasts or read their horoscopes. There's also a huge number follow political parties blindly because their father's and their father's before them did. None of these reasons are imo an intelligent or informed reason to base a political opinion upon but I'd wager many did. Whilst I respect your choice to believe that the Scottish electorate are an intelligent bunch, nothing you say will convince me that there's not a large amount of headbangers out there whose only only qualification to vote is that they've successfully managed to reach the age of 18 without removing themselves from the gene pool.

What patronising guff.

You showed it under your previous username when the referendum result came in - there's a manky, nasty side to nationalists where anyone who disagrees with them is deemed stupid or weak-minded.

You need to learn a better respect for the Scottish people.

[Hibrandenburg]

What patronising guff.

You showed it under your previous username when the referendum result came in - there's a manky, nasty side to nationalists where anyone who disagrees with them is deemed stupid or weak-minded.

You need to learn a better respect for the Scottish people.

That made me laugh out loud.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black and all in one post. I'm sure you'll even find racist undertones in this post too.

[snooky]

That made me laugh out loud.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black and all in one post. I'm sure you'll even find racist undertones in this post too.
Jim Murphy has achieved the impossible by surpassing Johann Lamont as the biggest threat to Scottish Labour Party's political future.
Arrogant numpty.

[degenerated]

Jim Murphy as achieved the impossible by surpassing Johann Lamont as the biggest threat to Scottish Labour Party's political future.
Arogant numpty.
That performance today was his worst yet, I'm sure he even interrupted himself at one stage.

Well maybe not quite his worst 😁

https://youtu.be/bZssHRYTKt8

[Hibrandenburg]

Jim Murphy has achieved the impossible by surpassing Johann Lamont as the biggest threat to Scottish Labour Party's political future.
Arrogant numpty.

Aye, but that's politically acceptable, it's only us goose stepping nasty cybernats that aren't supposed to be arrogant and patronizing. The hypocrisy is galling, demanding that those who wanted independence to bow to democracy and accept the democratic voice of the people where as what they really mean is that they should give up the campaign. They can't get it into their heads that YES have accepted the result, there's no armed conflict or civil protest directed towards the UK government, instead YES have reshuffled and are picking up the pieces to move on to the next campaign whilst remembering the hard lessons from the last. It's our democratic right to continue to campaign for what we believe in but some on here obviously believe differently.

[Beefster]

It's our democratic right to continue to campaign for what we believe in but some on here obviously believe differently.

You can campaign for what you want but a bit of respect for the folk who actually took the democratic decision wouldn't go amiss.

[Mibbes Aye]

That made me laugh out loud.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black and all in one post. I'm sure you'll even find racist undertones in this post too.

Try answering the point.

[Hibrandenburg]

You can campaign for what you want but a bit of respect for the folk who actually took the democratic decision wouldn't go amiss.

What, all off them?

[Hibrandenburg]

Try answering the point.

There is no point. You made a nasty sweeping generalization about Scottish nationalists whilst describing my opinion as guff and lecturing me about respect. Now if that's not hypocrisy then I'm a goose stepping CyberNat.

[Moulin Yarns]

I can't link on the phone but a Polish prince has challenged Nigel garage to a duel in Hyde park using his father sword that saw off the Nazi in ww2

[Mibbes Aye]

There is no point. You made a nasty sweeping generalization about Scottish nationalists whilst describing my opinion as guff and lecturing me about respect. Now if that's not hypocrisy then I'm a goose stepping CyberNat.

Try answering the point.

[Hibrandenburg]

Try answering the point.

What point?

[Mibbes Aye]

What point?

This point.

You've seen it before but never answered it.

There's a manky, nasty side to nationalists where anyone who disagrees with them is deemed stupid or weak-minded.

You need to learn a better respect for the Scottish people.

[Mibbes Aye]

That made me laugh out loud.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black and all in one post. I'm sure you'll even find racist undertones in this post too.

Where?

[cabbageandribs1875]

There is no point. You made a nasty sweeping generalization about Scottish nationalists whilst describing my opinion as guff and lecturing me about respect. Now if that's not hypocrisy then I'm a goose stepping CyberNat.



don't be "MANKY" now :greengrin sounds like he needs to learn better respect for other scottish people :agree: :kettle: indeed

[Hibrandenburg]

This point.

You've seen it before but never answered it.

There's a manky, nasty side to nationalists where anyone who disagrees with them is deemed stupid or weak-minded.

You need to learn a better respect for the Scottish people.

Don't see any point, all I see is an unfounded and nasty sweeping generalization aimed at those who wish to have an independent Scotland and are willing to use their democratic right to campaign for it. All I see is you trying to use the referendum result to undermine the dynamic process of democracy by attempting retain the status quo. I honestly don't know what you want to hear.

[Hibrandenburg]

don't be "MANKY" now :greengrin sounds like he needs to learn better respect for other scottish people :agree: :kettle: indeed

Why do I have a picture of Rick from the "Young One's" shouting "Fascist" in my head?

[Beefster]

All I see is you trying to use the referendum result to undermine the dynamic process of democracy by attempting retain the status quo.

No-one has to 'attempt' to retain the status quo because the dynamic process of democracy that resulted in the referendum did exactly that.

[Hibrandenburg]

No-one has to 'attempt' to retain the status quo because the dynamic process of democracy that resulted in the referendum did exactly that.

For now. But it could be argued that the GE will throw up changes set in motion as a direct consequence of the independence campaign and result. We'll see.

[steakbake]

No doubt there are some knobheads and oddballs in politics: in fact, it's fair to say that it specifically attracts them. Look at your average politician: weirdos.

When I was out and about leafleting for the referendum, there were some Yes voters I met who were toe-curling. But that's just people: it's not the message that creates them. In the same way the No voter who threatened to call the police because I "damaged his letter box", or the woman who chased after me in her stairwell hurling various insults about "people like me ruining the country". My own dad made some comment or other about Salmond being exactly like Hitler or Mussolini, which is pretty knee jerk analysis - a bit like unionists being called Quislings: it's way OTT but I don't believe people who hold those views invalidate or negate more erudite viewpoints of the better informed.

Online, the commentary is embarrassing at times. But like twatter or any number of social media outlets, there's always someone who acts like a c***. Hell, you even find them on here!

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll

SNP 52% +6
Lab 24% -6
Con 13% -1
Lib 6% +1
Green 3% -1

Support for UKIP in Scotland is almost negligible :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll

SNP 52% +6
Lab 24% -6
Con 13% -1
Lib 6% +1
Green 3% -1

Support for UKIP in Scotland is almost negligible :greengrin

If that stays the way it is we'll be sending 56 Jack booted SNP MPs down to Westminster against 2 from Labour and 1 Liberal. For the first time in my lifetime Scotland might actually have a real voice in what's decided there. However I wouldn't rule out Labour and the Tories forming a large coalition to stop that very thing after the dye is set.

[DaveF]

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll

SNP 52% +6
Lab 24% -6
Con 13% -1
Lib 6% +1
Green 3% -1

Support for UKIP in Scotland is almost negligible :greengrin

Be interesting to see the polls taken after the Scottish leader's debates and whether the regurgitation of the referendum brought up by Lab, Tory and Lib has had any negative effect on the SNP support.

From 978 people surveyed in this poll, the age split shows the older vote being reasonably solid for Labour and Tories

"Support for the SNP continues to be very strong among younger voters (who are certain to vote and express a preference) – 71% of the 18-34s, against 57% for the 35-54s and 40% for those aged 55 and over. Among the oldest age group, Labour scores 32% and the Conservatives 20%."

[steakbake]

If that stays the way it is we'll be sending 56 Jack booted SNP MPs down to Westminster against 2 from Labour and 1 Liberal. For the first time in my lifetime Scotland might actually have a real voice in what's decided there. However I wouldn't rule out Labour and the Tories forming a large coalition to stop that very thing after the dye is set.

Scotland would be shut out - the SNPs are outsiders in the Westminster game. The others won't be giving them a kick of the ball. That's why the wagons are circling and everything is being thrown at them to keep them away.

I can't see a formal Lab/SNP coalition ever - in fact, I'd say a Lab/anyone else but SNP coalition: even the Tories. However, I think the Tories would still rather have a NI Unionist, UKIP and LD tie in.

The upshot of this, strangely, may be that IF (and it is still a big IF) the SNP send 50+ MPs to Westminster, yet a government is made up from parties where there are 2, 3 or 4 MPs from Scotland, then I think it will bring about another referendum pretty quickly.

[JeMeSouviens]

No-one has to 'attempt' to retain the status quo because the dynamic process of democracy that resulted in the referendum did exactly that.

Faster, safer, better change ring any bells?

[snooky]

Aye, but that's politically acceptable, it's only us goose stepping nasty cybernats that aren't supposed to be arrogant and patronizing. The hypocrisy is galling, demanding that those who wanted independence to bow to democracy and accept the democratic voice of the people where as what they really mean is that they should give up the campaign. They can't get it into their heads that YES have accepted the result, there's no armed conflict or civil protest directed towards the UK government, instead YES have reshuffled and are picking up the pieces to move on to the next campaign whilst remembering the hard lessons from the last. It's our democratic right to continue to campaign for what we believe in but some on here obviously believe differently.

:agree: Eloquently put :applause:

[marinello59]

Scotland would be shut out - the SNPs are outsiders in the Westminster game. The others won't be giving them a kick of the ball. That's why the wagons are circling and everything is being thrown at them to keep them away.

I can't see a formal Lab/SNP coalition ever - in fact, I'd say a Lab/anyone else but SNP coalition: even the Tories. However, I think the Tories would still rather have a NI Unionist, UKIP and LD tie in.

The upshot of this, strangely, may be that IF (and it is still a big IF) the SNP send 50+ MPs to Westminster, yet a government is made up from parties where there are 2, 3 or 4 MPs from Scotland, then I think it will bring about another referendum pretty quickly.

The SNP won't be shut out by Labour. There will be an informal arrangement if Labour have any chance at all of forming a Goverment. Labour just can't come out and say that just now as they still want to win as many Labour seats as possible.
No offence but your post reads like the kind of made up thinking they tried and failed to smear Sturgeon with. You are correct though. If the parties in Westminster who wanted us to stay as an equal partner can't adjust to the reality of us taking them up on their offer then the Union will be under more strain than ever.
Election night is going to be fun no matter what the result is. An SNP landslide in Scotland coupled with a win for Labour in Bradford West on their way to becoming the largest party in Westminster would be my dream result.

[BroxburnHibee]

Be amazed but delighted if the SNP return 50 odd seats. Even half that would be superb IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

Be amazed but delighted if the SNP return 50 odd seats. Even half that would be superb IMO.
The thing about the opinion polls is that they rarely take into account local circumstances in each constituency. It's therefore difficult to say that support of x% will result in y seats.

That's possible in a PR-based election, but not one like this that's based on FPTP.

[Hibrandenburg]

The SNP won't be shut out by Labour. There will be an informal arrangement if Labour have any chance at all of forming a Goverment. Labour just can't come out and say that just now as they still want to win a's many Labour seats as possible.
No offence but your post reads like the kind of made up thinking they tried and failed to smear Sturgeon with. You are correct though. If the parties in Westminster who wanted us to stay as an equal partner can't adjust to the reality of us taking them up on their offer then the Union will be under more strain than ever.
Election night is going to be fun no matter what the result is. An SNP landslide in Scotland coupled with a win for Labour in Bradford West on their way to becoming the largest party in Westminster would be my dream result.

I still think a red/blue coalition is more likely. Labour and the Tories have more in common with each other than the SNP. They've put on a united front before and they'd spin it as saving the union/trident whilst in reality they'd be looking out for themselves as usual.

[snooky]

I still think a red/blue coalition is more likely. Labour and the Tories have more in common with each other than the SNP. They've put on a united front before and they'd spin it as saving the union/trident whilst in reality they'd be looking out for themselves as usual.

Oh, ye who have little faith :wink:

[Hibbyradge]

I still think a red/blue coalition is more likely. Labour and the Tories have more in common with each other than the SNP. They've put on a united front before and they'd spin it as saving the union/trident whilst in reality they'd be looking out for themselves as usual.

Sorry, but that's fanciful nonsense.

There's not a chance of it happpening. It would be immediate political suicide for both parties.

UKIP, The SNP, Plaid and the Greens would eat them up. More significantly, can you imagine how delighted the Liberals would be? The fall and spectacular overnight rise of Nick Clegg.

If Labour need the SNP, which they might not depending on the extent of the Lib Dem collapse, there will be a fudged deal done, possibly about another referendum or a promise that Scotland would get to use the pound or even a referendum on Trident.

Otherwise, we'd have a minority government in power until October or so when they would finally lose a vote of no confidence.

[steakbake]

The SNP won't be shut out by Labour. There will be an informal arrangement if Labour have any chance at all of forming a Goverment. Labour just can't come out and say that just now as they still want to win as many Labour seats as possible.
No offence but your post reads like the kind of made up thinking they tried and failed to smear Sturgeon with. You are correct though. If the parties in Westminster who wanted us to stay as an equal partner can't adjust to the reality of us taking them up on their offer then the Union will be under more strain than ever.
Election night is going to be fun no matter what the result is. An SNP landslide in Scotland coupled with a win for Labour in Bradford West on their way to becoming the largest party in Westminster would be my dream result.

I'd like an SNP landslide, a Lab biggest party and a couple of Greens in, too.

On TV, looking forward to Danny Alexander potentially losing his seat as well as a couple of the big Labour guns in Scotland finding themselves suddenly turfed off the gravy train.

[Hibrandenburg]

There's not a chance of that happpening. It would be immediate political suicide for both parties.

If Labour need the SNP, which they might not depending on the extent of the Lib Dem collapse, there will be a fudged deal done, possibly about another referendum or a promise that Scotland would get to use the pound or even a referendum on Trident.

Otherwise, we'd have a minority government in power until October when they lose a vote of no confidence.

There's more votes to be lost south of the Tweed than north of it and a coalition with the SNP would have the Labour/Tory loyalists up in arms. Any backlash from die in the wool voters would be canceled out because it would apply to both parties. Wouldn't surprise me if talks had already taken place.

[The Harp Awakes]

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll

SNP 52% +6
Lab 24% -6
Con 13% -1
Lib 6% +1
Green 3% -1

Support for UKIP in Scotland is almost negligible :greengrin

If that poll is accurate, the result on May 7 would shake Westminster to its foundations:shocked:

[Hibbyradge]

There's more votes to be lost south of the Tweed than north of it and a coalition with the SNP would have the Labour/Tory loyalists up in arms. Any backlash from die in the wool voters would be canceled out because it would apply to both parties. Wouldn't surprise me if talks had already taken place.

Why would Tory loyalists being "up in arms" about anything concern the Labour Party?

The backlash would be cancelled out, maybe, but only against each other. Their general support and popularity would be through the floor. The Lib Dems and others would mop up.

I'm most likely to vote SNP next month, but if a party spokesperson was to come out with such implausible nonsense, they'd lose my support as their political nous and credibility would be gone.

They'd be subjected to more ridicule that Farage is. Thankfully, they won't say anything like that, because they know it wouldn't happen.

If neither Labour or the Tories can do a deal to get them into power, it will be a minority government until we do it all again.

The Tories want to frighten people about the SNP which is why Lord Baker Ken Baker publicised this fantasy last month, although it was an ex Tory speech writer who raised it first in January. And in the Guardian!

[Colr]

Scotland would be shut out - the SNPs are outsiders in the Westminster game. The others won't be giving them a kick of the ball. That's why the wagons are circling and everything is being thrown at them to keep them away.

I can't see a formal Lab/SNP coalition ever - in fact, I'd say a Lab/anyone else but SNP coalition: even the Tories. However, I think the Tories would still rather have a NI Unionist, UKIP and LD tie in.

The upshot of this, strangely, may be that IF (and it is still a big IF) the SNP send 50+ MPs to Westminster, yet a government is made up from parties where there are 2, 3 or 4 MPs from Scotland, then I think it will bring about another referendum pretty quickly.

If SNP gain that many seats from Labour, it will be less likely that Labour will be the largest party so will not be first to attempt to form a coalition. SNP's best hope is for a much smaller number of MPs but enough to tip the balance

[cabbageandribs1875]

If that poll is accurate, the result on May 7 would shake Westminster to its foundations:shocked:




certainly more than guy fawkes managed anyway

[Hibrandenburg]

Why would Tory loyalists being "up in arms" about anything concern the Labour Party?

The backlash would be cancelled out, maybe, but only against each other. Their general support and popularity would be through the floor. The Lib Dems and others would mop up.

I'm most likely to vote SNP next month, but if a party spokesperson was to come out with such implausible nonsense, they'd lose my support as their political nous and credibility would be gone.

They'd be subjected to more ridicule that Farage is. Thankfully, they won't say anything like that, because they know it wouldn't happen.

If neither Labour or the Tories can do a deal to get them into power, it will be a minority government until we do it all again.

The Tories want to frighten people about the SNP which is why Lord Baker Ken Baker publicised this fantasy last month, although it was an ex Tory speech writer who raised it first in January. And in the Guardian!

The worst thing that could happen to both parties is decentralization of power and maybe even the break up of the UK. I think you'd be surprised at how far both parties would go to protect their dual monopoly on power. Add to that the loss of influence on the world stage if we decommission trident and the old boys clubs will be bending over backwards to save their institutions.

Of course all this is just speculation on my part and the circumstances would have to make it necessary, but because this isn't even being talked about in public makes me think it's a distinct possibility even if the odds are against it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Tories now wanting to sell off the top priced council houses. Haven't we been here before and didn't it lead to the death of affordable housing?

[ACLeith]

2 results I would love to see is Farage fail to get elected, he has said he would jack it in and as a one-man band would lead to the demise of the current racist party - and Murphy to lose, which I know is unlikely but would be so much fun!

[marinello59]

Tories now wanting to sell off the top priced council houses. Haven't we been here before and didn't it lead to the death of affordable housing?

It was a terrible policy and one we should not be revisiting. Unfortunately it was also hugely popular across the whole of the UK.

[Hibbyradge]

Of course all this is just speculation on my part and the circumstances would have to make it necessary, but because this isn't even being talked about in public makes me think it's a distinct possibility even if the odds are against it.

lol

What a mental argument.

I suggest it's not being discussed in public for the same reason a Tory/SNP coalition isn't being discussed.

Or is that a distinct possibility too, even if the odds are against it?

I wonder. :hmmm:

[The_Todd]

I still think a red/blue coalition is more likely. Labour and the Tories have more in common with each other than the SNP. They've put on a united front before and they'd spin it as saving the union/trident whilst in reality they'd be looking out for themselves as usual.

There's many reasons it won't happen, all mentioned here. One interesting point which hasn't been mentioned here and which would be a bizarre outcome of a Lab\Con coalition: on current polling and seat predictions, the SNP would become the official opposition. The shadow cabinet made up entirely of SNP MPs: can you imagine the outrage and constitutional meltdown which would follow?

For that reason alone, it wouldn't happen. Let alone the fact it would be mutual destruction of both main parties and, as much as its a nice soundbite - Labour and Tories really aren't one and the same. They may fight over the centre ground but there's enough clear blue (or red?) water between the two.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/jim-murphy-and-ed-balls-at-odds-over-labour-cuts-1-3743632


Jim Murphy and Ed Balls ‘at odds’ over Labour cutsTHE UK Labour leadership has publicly slapped down Jim Murphy on the party’s spending plans

poor jim, what was it murphy said to nicola sturgeon, something about her being able to fool the public down south but not in scotland ? sounds like murphy is trying to fool the people of scotland...but wont get away with it down south :greengrin it's not just a slapping down murphy needs, it's a GAG