More establishment bias from The New Statesman?

[hibs0666]

New Statesman questions Sturgeon's little con trick - does this count as a conspiracy by the establishment?

Len McCluskey this week praised Nicola Sturgeon and said that Labour should be prepared to work with the SNP. He isn’t the only English lefty to fall for the charms of Scotland’s First Minister. ‘Can I vote SNP?’ was one of the most popular Google searches among non-Scottish voters who watched the main leaders’ debate at the start of the campaign. The effect has been similar to Cleggmania in 2010 with a rival party leader appearing to say the sorts of things many Labour supporters have longed to hear from one of their own. Why shouldn’t they be attracted to the idea of Labour forming a progressive alliance with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and possibly a Green or two? For very good reasons, as it happens.

The case against a deal with the SNP is usually made by Labour tribalists and couched in terms so self-serving as to be immediately discounted by its intended audience. The party might do better if it showed more self-awareness by acknowledging that there are valid reasons for people in Scotland to feel angry with it.

The argument for steering clear of the SNP isn’t that Labour has a monopoly of progressive virtue. It clearly doesn’t. The real reason for being a Nat-sceptic is that, aside from nationalism, the SNP has no ideological core of its own and simply instrumentalises progressive ideas to advance the regressive goal of separatism. For the non-Scottish left there can be no question of a principled and trusting relationship with the SNP because you can’t build a common project for social change with someone whose first and only purpose is to smash up the political community to which you both belong. The left in England and Wales may want the UK to work differently, but they definitely want it to work. Nicola Sturgeon and her party want it to fail.

The SNP could have proved otherwise by refocusing its priorities on areas of shared interest with the rest of Britain when it lost the referendum, but it spurned the opportunity. Like true vanguardists, the self-styled ‘45’ decided to set democracy and majority opinion aside and behave as if they were real voice of Scotland. Their pledge that the referendum would be a “once in a generation” event was immediately ditched in a frenzy of debate about how soon a rerun could be engineered and what ruses would be needed to secure a different outcome. Everything the SNP does is now framed with that solitary objective in mind.

The effect has been to foster a dominant attitude that is highly sectarian and trending towards totalitarian. There is only one truth and one way to be authentically Scottish – the nationalist way. Anyone who disagrees with this is, as one SNP parliamentary candidate put it, the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator. There is no space for pluralism and honest compromise with a movement in this state of mind. The normal rules of democratic conduct don’t apply because it answers to destiny alone. When Nicola Sturgeon says that she wants to help the Labour Party, she does so in the same spirit that Lenin once advised his British followers support the Labour Party of Arthur Henderson: “as the rope supports a hanged man”.

The SNP’s progressive credentials don’t, in any case, stand up to serious scrutiny. When Sturgeon was asked at her manifesto launch to name a redistributive policy enacted by the SNP in Holyrood, she was unable to cite a single example. There has been plenty of middle class welfarism, but no effective measures to reduce inequality or poverty. Indeed, the SNP in power has resembled nothing as much as New Labour in its pomp, combining the worst reflexes of authoritarian statism and market liberalism with a superior, “we know best” attitude that brooks no opposition.

With the creation of a single national police force, the routine use of armed response units, a stop and search rate four times higher than the rest of the UK and plans to create an integrated ID database, the SNP has strayed into areas that even Tony Blair’s Home Secretaries backed away from. A new ‘named person’ law will create an army of state employed snoopers with a right to pry into the affairs of every family. The party has also taken a lurch towards democratic centralism with a new gagging rule that obliges its MPs to "accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".

The SNP’s ‘business friendly’ approach of sucking up to powerful tycoons like Donald Trump, Brian Souter and Rupert Murdoch is scarcely any better then Blair’s cloying embrace of the super-rich, and arguably worse. The party’s flagship post-independence economic policy of attracting multinational companies by slashing corporation tax and undercutting the welfare budgets of other countries is the sort of tax piracy beloved of the neo-liberal right. The SNP’s claims to be anti-austerity have been revealed as baseless. Only opposition to Trident sets it apart; hardly an act of principle given that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to afford nuclear weapons.

At a time when Britain is crying out for a politics of the common good, the SNP stands for a militant politics of sectional advantage. It is rapidly acquiring the characteristics of a political religion, a faith-based movement that vilifies unbelievers and subordinates all other considerations to the attainment of national ‘rapture’ through independence. This sets it apart from other parties, even Plaid Cymru which takes a more pragmatic approach to independence and has already worked as part of a coalition in Cardiff. There are good reasons for people on the left to want a new kind of pluralist politics, but it’s no use pretending that you can pursue that vision with people who aren’t pluralists. Short of a second referendum defeat, the SNP is likely to remain a belligerent and destructive force in British politics. Progressives beware.

[JeMeSouviens]

Presumably you'll be campaigning to end the Barnett formula asap then? Anything else would be "sectional advantage"?

[DaveF]

With the creation of a single national police force, the routine use of armed response units, a stop and search rate four times higher than the rest of the UK and plans to create an integrated ID database, the SNP has strayed into areas that even Tony Blair’s Home Secretaries backed away from. A new ‘named person’ law will create an army of state employed snoopers with a right to pry into the affairs of every family. The party has also taken a lurch towards democratic centralism with a new gagging rule that obliges its MPs to "accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".

This is exactly the same stuff that the nutjob David Cockburn from was banging on about on Politics Scotland yesterday. Interesting that Labour activists on here are now promoting the same lines as UKIP.

I should really be getting my plans to emigrate from this Police state into order........

[hibs0666]

Presumably you'll be campaigning to end the Barnett formula asap then? Anything else would be "sectional advantage"?

The question of the fairness of the Barnett formula will I'm sure be addressed in the fullness in time, particularly as wee Nicola will soon have control of Scottish income tax receipts.

Presumably you agree that the independence referendum was a once in a generation event.

[JeMeSouviens]

The question of the fairness of the Barnett formula will I'm sure be addressed in the fullness in time, particularly as wee Nicola will soon have control of Scottish income tax receipts.

Nope, you can't have it both ways.

Either ...

1. You stick to the guarantee never to change it (as found in the vow). Even though you're ripping off your fellow workers throughout the rUK

or

2. You break the vow to rid us of this sectional advantage.

So which is it?

[JeMeSouviens]

The question of the fairness of the Barnett formula will I'm sure be addressed in the fullness in time, particularly as wee Nicola will soon have control of Scottish income tax receipts.

Presumably you agree that the independence referendum was a once in a generation event.

No, I never said indyref was a OIAG event. I would hold another one as soon as the polls consistently suggest a majority in favour. :wink:

[hibs0666]

This is exactly the same stuff that the nutjob David Cockburn from was banging on about on Politics Scotland yesterday. Interesting that Labour activists on here are now promoting the same lines as UKIP.

I should really be getting my plans to emigrate from this Police state into order........

Why is the SNP promoting such authoritarian policies and why are it's 'progressive' supporters response to this nonsense be to sit meekly on their hands and keep their collective gobs shut?

[hibs0666]

No, I never said indyref was a OIAG event. I would hold another one as soon as the polls consistently suggest a majority in favour. :wink:

I'm not surprised.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not surprised.

I'm surprised you're happy to rip off your fellow Brits. What happened to poverty in Liverpool being as important as poverty in Glasgow? :rolleyes:

[DaveF]

Why is the SNP promoting such authoritarian policies and why are it's 'progressive' supporters response to this nonsense be to sit meekly on their hands and keep their collective gobs shut?

Why are you spouting the same line as UKIP? Is that what Scottish Labour has come to now? No wonder the support for your party is apparently sinking faster than the Titanic.

[hibs0666]

Why are you spouting the line as UKIP? Is that Scottish Labour has come to now? No wonder the support for your party is apparently sinking faster than the Titanic.

Why is it proving so difficult to get a response to the point raised in the New Statesman? I can only assume that the reason for your deflection is a level of discomfort in what is happening in Scotland. But I guess no-one is allowed to express their disquiet in the SNP.

Why is the level of stop and search so high in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why pursue a national ID card in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why introduce named persons to increase the power of the Scottish State and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

[JeMeSouviens]

Why is it proving so difficult to get a response to the point raised in the New Statesman? I can only assume that the reason for your deflection is a level of discomfort in what is happening in Scotland. But I guess no-one is allowed to express their disquiet in the SNP.

Why is the level of stop and search so high in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why pursue a national ID card in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why introduce named persons to increase the power of the Scottish State and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Doing a lot of asking here, but not much answering. I'll try again (maybe you forgot):

Either ...

1. You stick to the guarantee never to change it (as found in the vow). Even though you're ripping off your fellow workers throughout the rUK

or

2. You break the vow to rid us of this sectional advantage.

So which is it?

[hibs0666]

Doing a lot of asking here, but not much answering. I'll try again (maybe you forgot):

Either ...

1. You stick to the guarantee never to change it (as found in the vow). Even though you're ripping off your fellow workers throughout the rUK

or

2. You break the vow to rid us of this sectional advantage.

So which is it?

As you well know the Smith Commission report - as agreed by Swinney - describes how the Barnett formula is to be applied going forward.

Question for you - does the SNP still stand behind the Smith Commission report or is that another area where Sturgeon will try to take the piss?

I'm assuming that you are also entirely comfortable with SNP authoritarian policy towards stop & search, ID cards and named persons?

[DaveF]

Why is it proving so difficult to get a response to the point raised in the New Statesman? I can only assume that the reason for your deflection is a level of discomfort in what is happening in Scotland. But I guess no-one is allowed to express their disquiet in the SNP.

Why is the level of stop and search so high in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why pursue a national ID card in Scotland and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

Why introduce named persons to increase the power of the Scottish State and why is there no outcry amongst SNP progressives? Answer: It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence

No discomfort from me personally (I'm not a card carrying SNP member BTW) and if the outcry is so great to these points then the SNP will have their erses felt in 2016 and Labour can make things all better for us. Seems like that would be Democracy in action to me?

Now, are you OK with sharing the same views as David Cockburn? Any chance of a coalition happening since you seem to be singing from the same sheet?

[JeMeSouviens]

As you well know the Smith Commission report - as agreed by Swinney - describes how the Barnett formula is to be applied going forward.


I didn't ask about John Swinney or the Smith Commission.

I asked how you, hibs0666, feel about the perpetuation of the sectional advantage in public spending benefiting Scotland to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

Why can't you answer?

[hibs0666]

No discomfort from me personally (I'm not a card carrying SNP member BTW) and if the outcry is so great to these points then the SNP will have their erses felt in 2016 and Labour can make things all better for us. Seems like that would be Democracy in action to me?

Now, are you OK with sharing the same views as David Cockburn? Any chance of a coalition happening since you seem to be singing from the same sheet?

Like you I'm not a card-carrying member of any party and so I have no idea what you fixation is with UKIP. You obviously do not see any conflict between Sturgeon's progressive party matra and authoritarian social policy - except I think you do see the conflict but are happy to accommodate it because the only really important thing is achieving Scottish separation.

[hibs0666]

I didn't ask about John Swinney or the Smith Commission.

I asked how you, hibs0666, feel about the perpetuation of the sectional advantage in public spending benefiting Scotland to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

Why can't you answer?

If you're asking me what I think about the Barnett formula, then I think it should be replaced by a mechanism based on need as any progressive would agree with I'm sure. Happy?

Now, why would a progressive party like the SNP seek to offer tax bungs to multinational corporates as core plank of its economic policy? I know the the answer of course - It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence.

[DaveF]

Like you I'm not a card-carrying member of any party and so I have no idea what you fixation is with UKIP. You obviously do not see any conflict between Sturgeon's progressive party matra and authoritarian social policy - except I think you do see the conflict but are happy to accommodate it because the only really important thing is achieving Scottish separation.

The 'fixation' as you put it, is down to nothing more than you posting an article which Cockburn could have used as his script for an appearance on TV yesterday. 'Gun carrying Police in the highlands, increase of stop and search, stasi like spies in homes.....'

Therefore, I'm just assuming you and him share the same ideals?

[hibs0666]

The 'fixation' as you put it, is down to nothing more than you posting an article which Cockburn could have used as his script for an appearance on TV yesterday. 'Gun carrying Police in the highlands, increase of stop and search, stasi like spies in homes.....'

Therefore, I'm just assuming you and him share the same ideals?

Just to quote the New Statesman article once again - The effect has been to foster a dominant attitude that is highly sectarian and trending towards totalitarian. There is only one truth and one way to be authentically Scottish – the nationalist way. Anyone who disagrees with this is, as one SNP parliamentary candidate put it, the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator.

You make the guy's point for him it would appear.

[JeMeSouviens]

If you're asking me what I think about the Barnett formula, then I think it should be replaced by a mechanism based on need as any progressive would agree with I'm sure. Happy?


Excellent! (Me too, btw). Barnett is unfair and unjustifiable.

Good luck keeping the Union together with no bribe and a broken vow though. :wink:

[hibs0666]

Excellent! (Me too, btw). Barnett is unfair and unjustifiable.

Good luck keeping the Union together with no bribe and a broken vow though. :wink:

Now, Why are you - JeMeSouviens - as a progressive, perfectly happy with SNP policy on stop & search, ID cards and named persons?

[stoneyburn hibs]

If you're asking me what I think about the Barnett formula, then I think it should be replaced by a mechanism based on need as any progressive would agree with I'm sure. Happy?

Now, why would a progressive party like the SNP seek to offer tax bungs to multinational corporates as core plank of its economic policy? I know the the answer of course - It's OK cos its wee Nicky and she'll get us independence.

Do other progressive party's in the UK not offer tax bungs to multinational corporates ? Are there other progressive party's in the UK ?

I wish I had time before Thursday to put a copy of the New Statesman through every letterbox in Scotland.

[DaveF]

Just to quote the New Statesman article once again - The effect has been to foster a dominant attitude that is highly sectarian and trending towards totalitarian. There is only one truth and one way to be authentically Scottish – the nationalist way. Anyone who disagrees with this is, as one SNP parliamentary candidate put it, the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator.

You make the guy's point for him it would appear.

Right. So because I'm asking you a question on whether you share the same views as David Cockburn (which you are avoiding) that means I'm challenging your Scottishness (is that a word :greengrin) and forstering a dominant attitude?

Here was me thinking this was just a forum for debate.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, but what's the point in all this bitterness and point scoring in here?

Apart from one person who enigmatically tells us that he/she has changed their voting intentions, :rolleyes: no-one is going to move their position.

I've warmed to Ed Milliband in the last few weeks. He's performed a lot better than I thought he could and he's now coming across as a very credible and believable politician. I hope he's the next PM.

Jim Murphy has been really terrible, however, unless he's the Brian Kerr of Labour politics and is doing a lot of great unseen work! There's no passion and no leadership and he comes across as a real lightweight, even allowing Ruth Davidson to outshine him in the TV debates. He's not credible and I can't imagine anyone being inspired by anything he said.

It's quite different with Nicola Sturgeon. The reason I'm voting SNP is because of what she has said, and how she's said it. I perceive her as being honest and decent, and many of her voiced policies are what I've been waiting to hear from Labour since 1997.

If she'd been in charge last September, I think more people would have voted Yes, but we'll never know.

All the above is my perception, so there's no point giving me a hard time. Also, my cross is already on my ballot paper.

[Peevemor]

When did the SNP "pledge" that the referendum was a once in a generation event? I heard it given as an opinion in an interview, but it'd be good if the New Statesman, Jim Murphy et al would show us where it's written in SNP doctrine.

I remember the Westminster big guns making a pledge, they seem to have forgotten about that one.

[hibs0666]

When did the SNP "pledge" that the referendum was a once in a generation event? I heard it given as an opinion in an interview, but it'd be good if the New Statesman, Jim Murphy et al would show us where it's written in SNP doctrine.

I remember the Westminster big guns making a pledge, they seem to have forgotten about that one.

Is that idea that we have keep on having this referendum until it delivers the right result?

Fat Salmond, on BBC (I know, it's a conspiracy) said...

...the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum.


Salmond was I assume speaking for his party's leadership. I can only assume that Sturgeon, Swinney et al are opportunistic liars. However, just to be sure, let's see what Sturgeon said to the Guardian...

Sturgeon says no threshold will be set for turnout in the referendum; if only half the electorate bother to vote, and only 51% of that half vote yes to independence, then Scotland will leave the UK through the wishes of a quarter of its population aged 16 and over. In fact, she expects turnout to be at least 70%. Even so, wouldn't a narrow margin of victory for either side leave the question unsettled?

"A referendum is by its very nature polarising. Whatever the margin of victory either way is, it will be the responsibility of politicians particularly to bring people together. We deliberately put a clause in the Edinburgh Agreement that said that both governments are committed to working together constructively after the result, whatever it is."

And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."

Sturgeon is, without any doubt, an opportunistic liar.

[lord bunberry]

John Major described the SNP as a deeply socialist party last week. So we now have accusations from both sides accusing us of being either too far to the right or too far to the left :rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

Is that idea that we have keep on having this referendum until it delivers the right result?

Fat Salmond, on BBC (I know, it's a conspiracy) said...

...the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum.


Salmond was I assume speaking for his party's leadership. I can only assume that Sturgeon, Swinney et al are opportunistic liars. However, just to be sure, let's see what Sturgeon said to the Guardian...

Sturgeon says no threshold will be set for turnout in the referendum; if only half the electorate bother to vote, and only 51% of that half vote yes to independence, then Scotland will leave the UK through the wishes of a quarter of its population aged 16 and over. In fact, she expects turnout to be at least 70%. Even so, wouldn't a narrow margin of victory for either side leave the question unsettled?

"A referendum is by its very nature polarising. Whatever the margin of victory either way is, it will be the responsibility of politicians particularly to bring people together. We deliberately put a clause in the Edinburgh Agreement that said that both governments are committed to working together constructively after the result, whatever it is."

And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."

Sturgeon is, without any doubt, an opportunistic liar.


OK. So where has Nicola Sturgeon said that there will be another referendum any time soon?

[The_Todd]

Is that idea that we have keep on having this referendum until it delivers the right result?

Fat Salmond, on BBC (I know, it's a conspiracy) said...

...the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum.


Salmond was I assume speaking for his party's leadership. I can only assume that Sturgeon, Swinney et al are opportunistic liars. However, just to be sure, let's see what Sturgeon said to the Guardian...

Sturgeon says no threshold will be set for turnout in the referendum; if only half the electorate bother to vote, and only 51% of that half vote yes to independence, then Scotland will leave the UK through the wishes of a quarter of its population aged 16 and over. In fact, she expects turnout to be at least 70%. Even so, wouldn't a narrow margin of victory for either side leave the question unsettled?

"A referendum is by its very nature polarising. Whatever the margin of victory either way is, it will be the responsibility of politicians particularly to bring people together. We deliberately put a clause in the Edinburgh Agreement that said that both governments are committed to working together constructively after the result, whatever it is."

And if the result is No? "Will there be another referendum round the corner? No. We can't bind our successors, but we've made very clear our belief that constitutional referenda are once-in-a-generation events."

Sturgeon is, without any doubt, an opportunistic liar.

Ok, for a start I'll probably vote Labour in this election. But there are things about Labour's approach that bother me.

1: Fat Salmond? Very good. Is this your attempt at grown up debate?
2: Nobody in the SNP is even talking about Indyref2. Labour are, though. Quite a lot. It's clear that there will only be an Indyref2 if it's in the SNP's 2016 manifesto. It almost certainly won't be. But say England gets its EU referendum in 2017 and decides to leave but Scotland votes to stay - I think it's only logical Indyref2 happens. And I think it's much more likely the Scottish people as a whole would agree and vote yes. That's not a "neverendum", that's a massive change of circumstance and I don't see why anyone should rule out a referendum in that case.
3: Labour need to understand that their behaviour and stance during the Indyref alienated a lot on the left in Scotland. By droning on and on Indyref2 not only is it not going to win back the voters they've lost to the SNP they're just losing more.

[hibs0666]

OK. So where has Nicola Sturgeon said that there will be another referendum any time soon?

OK. So where has Sturgeon ruled out another referendum any time soon?

[JeMeSouviens]

Now, Why are you - JeMeSouviens - as a progressive, perfectly happy with SNP policy on stop & search, ID cards and named persons?

I'm not. Think they've u turned on stop/search? I don't like id cards and the named person thing sounds badly thought out. A bit like the sectarianism/football thing which they've ballsed up imo.

However, these are all devolved things, Lab's record on social issues is as bad if not worse, I want rid of trident and last but by no means least :wink: I want constitutional upheaval front and centre. As much devo as poss now and independence as soon as.

[steakbake]

Labour should have allowed their members a free choice on the indyref. Instead, it just looked like a bunch of average politicians worried about their seats on the gravy train and the benefits to big companies of the tax subsidised low wages the UK offers.

[The_Todd]

Labour should have allowed their members a free choice on the indyref. Instead, it just looked like a bunch of average politicians worried about their seats on the gravy train and the benefits to big companies of the tax subsidised low wages the UK offers.

Exactly what should have happened. They'd be coasting this election in Scotland if they'd either stayed neutral or given their members free choice over the campaign.

[Peevemor]

OK. So where has Sturgeon ruled out another referendum any time soon?


She has said repeatedly that there will only be another referendum if the people of Scotland want (vote for) it. Is that not democracy?

So what are your grounds for calling her a liar?

[hibs0666]

I'm not. Think they've u turned on stop/search? I don't like id cards and the named person thing sounds badly thought out. A bit like the sectarianism/football thing which they've ballsed up imo.

However, these are all devolved things, Lab's record on social issues is as bad if not worse, I want rid of trident and last but by no means least :wink: I want constitutional upheaval front and centre. As much devo as poss now and independence as soon as.

Why the distinction between UK and devolved matters? By that logic we cannot debate the state of the NHS in Scotland in this election (I know, it's Westimnster's fault :wink:).

[hibs0666]

She has said repeatedly that there will only be another referendum if the people of Scotland want (vote for) it. Is that not democracy?

So what are your grounds for calling her a liar?

There will only be another referendum if the people of the UK, not only Scotland, want it surely?

[Peevemor]

There will only be another referendum if the people of the UK, not only Scotland, want it surely?


... or the elected representatives of the people of the UK.

So what are your grounds for calling Nicola Sturgeon a liar?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why the distinction between UK and devolved matters? By that logic we cannot debate the state of the NHS in Scotland in this election (I know, it's Westimnster's fault :wink:).

Because, in Scottish terms, this election isn't about the NHS. The time to put the boot into the SNP on that will be next year.

[Just Alf]

Just to quote the New Statesman article once again - The effect has been to foster a dominant attitude that is highly sectarian and trending towards totalitarian. There is only one truth and one way to be authentically Scottish – the nationalist way. Anyone who disagrees with this is, as one SNP parliamentary candidate put it, the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator.

You make the guy's point for him it would appear.

NOT just the SNP it seems...... :rolleyes:

14803

Why do people keep "playing the man" rather than discuss actual policies?

Also noticed that an SNP canvasser has been attacked and beaten up in Paisley today.... Sigh.

[EH6 Hibby]

Sturgeon is, without any doubt, an opportunistic liar.

Did Nicola Sturgeon give you a knock back or something?

You appear to be ever so slightly obsessed with her.

[JeMeSouviens]

Because, in Scottish terms, this election isn't about the NHS. The time to put the boot into the SNP on that will be next year.

Indeed. Although, as someone with rather more recent experience of the nhs than I'd like, it seems pretty damn good to me.

[Bristolhibby]

There will only be another referendum if the people of the UK, not only Scotland, want it surely?

Wrong. It's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

National Self Determination. It was voted on in September last year, it may well be voted on again. But the people of Scotland will decide.

If there is a shift in the Political Landscape (ie England votes out of EU, Scotland in) that is a game changing shift.

J