Scotland's Role in a "Balanced" Parliament

Say the SNP do end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and manage to get the concessions they are after from the UK government. Scotland is hardly going to be popular in England is it?

Let's face it, there's a thinly veiled contempt for Brown's Scottishness as it is. He is going to find himself between a rock and a hard place if he has to help out the old country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Say the SNP do end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and manage to get the concessions they are after from the UK government. Scotland is hardly going to be popular in England is it?

Let's face it, there's a thinly veiled contempt for Brown's Scottishness as it is. He is going to find himself between a rock and a hard place if he has to help out the old country.

---

In a hung parliament, it's likely that any Lib Dem / Lab or Lib Dem / Con pact will have an overall majority. The SNP will be an irrelevance as far as negotiating the next government goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

In a hung parliament, it's likely that any Lib Dem / Lab or Lib Dem / Con pact will have an overall majority. The SNP will be an irrelevance as far as negotiating the next government goes.

---

I watched Sturgeon getting ripped up for *rse paper last night on Newsnight. She couldn't explain why, if a hung parliament is what they are after, that people shouldn't vote tactically for the Lib Dems.

I suspect there's a wee bit of a rift between her and El Presidente at the moment, judging by the body language at the manifesto launch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Say the SNP do end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and manage to get the concessions they are after from the UK government. Scotland is hardly going to be popular in England is it?

Let's face it, there's a thinly veiled contempt for Brown's Scottishness as it is. He is going to find himself between a rock and a hard place if he has to help out the old country.

---

It's not going to make much odds on how we're perceived, as you say, they don't give two ****s about us anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woody1985

It's not going to make much odds on how we're perceived, as you say, they don't give two ****s about us anyway.

---

How does Westminster not give two ****s about Scotland?

I'm not a fan of the SNP line that they want a hung parliament so that they can hold a party to ransom over Scottish issues.

As someone who spends a bit of time daan saaf in amongst the middle English, it is notable how much there is general contempt for Brown and horror at the fact that a Scot is PM. They somehow think that as a Scot, I automatically like him.

There is, I think, a geniune liking of Scotland as a place but as King Edward in Braveheart puts it: the problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots.

I like to remind them that we are, apparently, a United Kingdom and therefore any one of our number could and should be PM. The perception is that we'll end up independent one way or the other.

Whether they like us or not there will still be 59 Scottish MP's at Westminster so the more mp's that are willing to fight for Scotland and not Britain the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by offshorehibby

Whether they like us or not there will still be 59 Scottish MP's at Westminster so the more mp's that are willing to fight for Scotland and not Britain the better.

---

In what sense are they going to 'fight' for Scotland and not Britain...what are these choices that will benefit Scotland so much but be detrimental to the UK as a whole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by offshorehibby

Whether they like us or not there will still be 59 Scottish MP's at Westminster so the more mp's that are willing to fight for Scotland and not Britain the better.

---

If you're suggesting that Scottish MPs from other parties won't care about Scottish issues then you've been listening to the Smug Jambo's scaremongering nonsense too much.

As yet I'm still waiting for any of the 3 major parties mention Scotland in any of their agenda's, why is there a seperate Scottish Tory/Labour/Libdem parties, surely the parties should be including Scotland in it's political agenda's within Britain's. This is one of the main reasons I'll be voting SNP again this year.:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

In what sense are they going to 'fight' for Scotland and not Britain...what are these choices that will benefit Scotland so much but be detrimental to the UK as a whole?

---

Scotland spends more on public services. Cuts to public services will have a detrimental effect on our economy, owing to the number of people who work in the public sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Scotland spends more on public services. Cuts to public services will have a detrimental effect on our economy, owing to the number of people who work in the public sector.

---

How is Salmond going to avoid making cuts then? Pretending that we don't all have to face some harsh economic choices is hardly a truthful policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

How is Salmond going to avoid making cuts then? Pretending that we don't all have to face some harsh economic choices is hardly a truthful policy.

---

By cutting:

• £100bn for Trident
• £5bn for what is left of the ID card scheme
• Getting rid of the house of lords

We have a government in Scotland that are delivering on issues that matter to Scottish people: 1000 more police on the beat, free higher education, free prescriptions, council tax freeze, personal care for elderly, free bus travel for elderly etc etc whilst trying to tackle our chronic alcohol problem and implement a fairer form of local taxation.

Contrast that with the British Government in Westminster: Illegal War, ID Cards, Nanny state, Expenses scandal, gross economic mismanagement whilst GB was chancellor etc etc. It shows how far removed politicians are from the people and their needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

By cutting:

• £100bn for Trident
• £5bn for what is left of the ID card scheme
• Getting rid of the house of lords

We have a government in Scotland that are delivering on issues that matter to Scottish people: 1000 more police on the beat, free higher education, free prescriptions, council tax freeze, personal care for elderly, free bus travel for elderly etc etc whilst trying to tackle our chronic alcohol problem and implement a fairer form of local taxation.

Contrast that with the British Government in Westminster: Illegal War, ID Cards, Nanny state, Expenses scandal, gross economic mismanagement whilst GB was chancellor etc etc. It shows how far removed politicians are from the people and their needs.

---

£2.5bn a year for Trident + £150m a year for the House of Lords + one-off saving of £5bn (let's assume £1bn a year for the next 5 years).

All good but where is the rest of the £84bn a year coming from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

By cutting:

• £100bn for Trident
• £5bn for what is left of the ID card scheme
• Getting rid of the house of lords

We have a government in Scotland that are delivering on issues that matter to Scottish people: 1000 more police on the beat, free higher education, free prescriptions, council tax freeze, personal care for elderly, free bus travel for elderly etc etc whilst trying to tackle our chronic alcohol problem and implement a fairer form of local taxation.

Contrast that with the British Government in Westminster: Illegal War, ID Cards, Nanny state, Expenses scandal, gross economic mismanagement whilst GB was chancellor etc etc. It shows how far removed politicians are from the people and their needs.

---

The 100 billion figure for Trident is the vastly inflated figure that Salmond likes to quote. Regardless of the actual figure it would be a long term saving though, that doesn't help us out in the immediate future. Cuts are needed now. (I don't see the logic in replacing Trident but that is a seperate argument)
I won't argue about scrapping ID cards, a flawed policy at best.
Getting rid of the House of Lords? It will need to be replaced with something...........will that be cost free then?

A 1000 more Bobbies on the beat was the Salmond promise. How many have been delivered? We can file that one in the same box as his smaller class sizes pledge.
The rest are great populist policies which can only be paid for by diverting funds from elsewhere. i.e free prescriptions were available to those who genuinely needed that assistance anyway. That's funds being diverted from other areas of the NHS. Salmond loves to make spending pledges then blame Westminster when the funds are not there to implement them.

Are the SNP distancing themselves from the expenses scandal as well. Salmond was hardly squeaky clean over that one or has he properly explained his Westminster food bill now? (Not illegal but his head was in the trough along with the rest of them) How would Salmond have managed the economy differently from GB? He loved to big up the Scottish banks before the bubble burst....then basically said it wisna us when they proved to have foundations built on sand.

I would only vote SNP as a means to obtaining Independence. That doesn't seem to be part of their manifesto for this election so what is the point of the SNP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The 100 billion figure for Trident is the vastly inflated figure that Salmond likes to quote. Regardless of the actual figure it would be a long term saving though, that doesn't help us out in the immediate future. Cuts are needed now. (I don't see the logic in replacing Trident but that is a seperate argument)
I won't argue about scrapping ID cards, a flawed policy at best.
Getting rid of the House of Lords? It will need to be replaced with something...........will that be cost free then?

A 1000 more Bobbies on the beat was the Salmond promise. How many have been delivered? We can file that one in the same box as his smaller class sizes pledge.
The rest are great populist policies which can only be paid for by diverting funds from elsewhere. i.e free prescriptions were available to those who genuinely needed that assistance anyway. That's funds being diverted from other areas of the NHS. Salmond loves to make spending pledges then blame Westminster when the funds are not there to implement them.

Are the SNP distancing themselves from the expenses scandal as well. Salmond was hardly squeaky clean over that one or has he properly explained his Westminster food bill now? (Not illegal but his head was in the trough along with the rest of them) How would Salmond have managed the economy differently from GB? He loved to big up the Scottish banks before the bubble burst....then basically said it wisna us when they proved to have foundations built on sand.

I would only vote SNP as a means to obtaining Independence. That doesn't seem to be part of their manifesto for this election so what is the point of the SNP?

---

There are 1039 more police officers in Scotland since the SNP came to power.

Class sizes in Primary Schools are at a record low, although they haven't met the target of 18 yet.

Of the 4 main parties (SNP, Lab, Lib, Con) the SNP are the only social democrats, and the only party really fighting for issues that matter to common people IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

There are 1039 more police officers in Scotland since the SNP came to power.

Class sizes in Primary Schools are at a record low, although they haven't met the target of 18 yet.

Of the 4 main parties (SNP, Lab, Lib, Con) the SNP are the only social democrats, and the only party really fighting for issues that matter to common people IMO.

---

How many are on the beat?

The target of 18 per class has been all but abandoned hasn't it? They have failed.

Your last statement is just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

There are 1039 more police officers in Scotland since the SNP came to power.

Class sizes in Primary Schools are at a record low, although they haven't met the target of 18 yet.

Of the 4 main parties (SNP, Lab, Lib, Con) the SNP are the only social democrats, and the only party really fighting for issues that matter to common people IMO.

---

:faf:

Social democrats who accepted half a million from a man who used his fortune to try and stop the repeal of Section 28.

Very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

By cutting:

• £100bn for Trident
• £5bn for what is left of the ID card scheme
• Getting rid of the house of lords

We have a government in Scotland that are delivering on issues that matter to Scottish people: 1000 more police on the beat, free higher education, free prescriptions, council tax freeze, personal care for elderly, free bus travel for elderly etc etc whilst trying to tackle our chronic alcohol problem and implement a fairer form of local taxation.

Contrast that with the British Government in Westminster: Illegal War, ID Cards, Nanny state, Expenses scandal, gross economic mismanagement whilst GB was chancellor etc etc. It shows how far removed politicians are from the people and their needs.

---

The one teensy problem with that analysis is that the Scottish Parliament - and therefore Alex Salmond - control none of those things and therefore can implement none of them as savings, even supposing they were the right savings in the first place.

Free personal care and free travel for the elderly was actually delivered by the previous (non-SNP) govts in the Scottish Parliament.

And SNP MPs at Westminster were caught up in the expenses scandal too were they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

The one teensy problem with that analysis is that the Scottish Parliament - and therefore Alex Salmond - control none of those things and therefore can implement none of them as savings, even supposing they were the right savings in the first place.

Free personal care and free travel for the elderly was actually delivered by the previous (non-SNP) govts in the Scottish Parliament.

And SNP MPs at Westminster were caught up in the expenses scandal too were they not?

---

I know he can't implement them as savings, but he can suggest that is how he would do it if he was PM and that they should be first in line to be cut.

Yes the SNP MPs were caught up in the expenses scandal. Politicians from every party were.

Politics for me isn't about which party I like most, it's about the party I dislike least and at the moment that party is the SNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Politics for me isn't about which party I like most, it's about the party I dislike least and at the moment that party is the SNP.

---

I can agree with that. I'll probably ignore the colour of the rosette and vote for the candidate I think will do the most for my local consituency.
The rest of your statement illustrates perfectly the depressing nature of politics today. Where is the party that enthuses the voters and gives us a positive reason to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

I can agree with that. I'll probably ignore the colour of the rosette and vote for the candidate I think will do the most for my local consituency.
The rest of your statement illustrates perfectly the depressing nature of politics today. Where is the party that enthuses the voters and gives us a positive reason to vote?

---

The problem isn't the parties. Its the quality of the electorate, the media and the politicians - in that order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

The problem isn't the parties. Its the quality of the electorate, the media and the politicians - in that order.

---

That's the problem with democracy, the voters.:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

I can agree with that. I'll probably ignore the colour of the rosette and vote for the candidate I think will do the most for my local consituency.
The rest of your statement illustrates perfectly the depressing nature of politics today. Where is the party that enthuses the voters and gives us a positive reason to vote?

---

Nowhere to be seen. It seems crazy as well when so many people want the same things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

:faf:

Social democrats who accepted half a million from a man who used his fortune to try and stop the repeal of Section 28.

Very good.

---

Try being the operative word. The only party with 3 MP's being charged by a court for fraud is Labour and reflects how morally corrupt that party under the stewarship of Bliar and Brown has become. Cash for honours, MP's offering Companies favours and a pint with Tony :greengrin, illegal war with only principled exceptions like the now sadly departed Robin Cook with a backbone to fight against the party machine. Mandelson the twice disgraced and resigned MP now getting a new more powerful role as Business Secretary, Brown now admitting maybe he should have regulated the banks more - thanks for that Gordon. 2.5m people officially unemployed.

How anyone can seriously consider voting for that shambles needs certifying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Try being the operative word. The only party with 3 MP's being charged by a court for fraud is Labour and reflects how morally corrupt that party under the stewarship of Bliar and Brown has become. Cash for honours, MP's offering Companies favours and a pint with Tony :greengrin, illegal war with only principled exceptions like the now sadly departed Robin Cook with a backbone to fight against the party machine. Mandelson the twice disgraced and resigned MP now getting a new more powerful role as Business Secretary, Brown now admitting maybe he should have regulated the banks more - thanks for that Gordon. 2.5m people officially unemployed.

How anyone can seriously consider voting for that shambles needs certifying?

---

I thought that there was one Tory as well but he didn't try to claim legal aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Scotland spends more on public services. Cuts to public services will have a detrimental effect on our economy, owing to the number of people who work in the public sector.

---

So let me get this right Scottish MP's should be trying to prevent public service cuts to protect Scotland even if that bankrupts the UK....even though the Scottish budget comes centrally from the UK. Seems a strange arguement that smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Would we not be much better trying to reduce the size of the public sector in Scotland so the country as a whole does not have to rely on taxation revenues (and therefore the spending power it provides) as the mainstay of it's economy?

Imagine Nigel Farage got elected and he held the balance of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

So let me get this right Scottish MP's should be trying to prevent public service cuts to protect Scotland even if that bankrupts the UK....even though the Scottish budget comes centrally from the UK. Seems a strange arguement that smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Would we not be much better trying to reduce the size of the public sector in Scotland so the country as a whole does not have to rely on taxation revenues (and therefore the spending power it provides) as the mainstay of it's economy?

---

I think what we saw in the 80s and 90s was that Scottish people see life in a different way from those south of the border. There is an argument that community and the well being of our neighbours is more important to us than it is in the South.

The UK wasn't too bothered about what we thought in the 80s, which pushed us towards devolution. Many would argue that Scotland has fared a lot better since our affairs were put in our hands.

I don't think the UK is of any more concern to us than the affairs of Ireland, or Holland. They are a trading partner. That said, I don't want to be taking things from England that we aren't entitled to.

I also don't want them taking more than our fare share from us. I think that has been happening less since devolution.

The current situation isn't acceptable to anyone. But that's the way democracy works - I always thought the purpose of electing MPs was that they would see to the interests of their constituents.

Personally, I am proud of the fact that Scotland looks after its people better than other parts of the UK. If England insists on holding the purse strings, we can hardly be blamed for putting our case for the money we are due.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I think what we saw in the 80s and 90s was that Scottish people see life in a different way from those south of the border. There is an argument that community and the well being of our neighbours is more important to us than it is in the South.

The UK wasn't too bothered about what we thought in the 80s, which pushed us towards devolution. Many would argue that Scotland has fared a lot better since our affairs were put in our hands.

I don't think the UK is of any more concern to us than the affairs of Ireland, or Holland. They are a trading partner. That said, I don't want to be taking things from England that we aren't entitled to.

I also don't want them taking more than our fare share from us. I think that has been happening less since devolution.

The current situation isn't acceptable to anyone. But that's the way democracy works - I always thought the purpose of electing MPs was that they would see to the interests of their constituents.

Personally, I am proud of the fact that Scotland looks after its people better than other parts of the UK. If England insists on holding the purse strings, we can hardly be blamed for putting our case for the money we are due.

---

You're confusing England with the United Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

There are 1039 more police officers in Scotland since the SNP came to power.

Class sizes in Primary Schools are at a record low, although they haven't met the target of 18 yet.

Of the 4 main parties (SNP, Lab, Lib, Con) the SNP are the only social democrats, and the only party really fighting for issues that matter to common people IMO.

---

From the Scottish Govermnents own website:

The average primary class now has 23.2 pupils. In 1996, the average was 24.9. We don't collect data on the size of secondary classes.

Hardly a vindication of the now abandonded 18 pupil per class pledge...which if anyone is being honest everyone knew was not acheivable but did not stop the SNP claiming as a pledge then when not acheived simply blamed on local councils.

Of course the fact that this pledge would need substantial investment, larger schools and more teachers is glossed over by claiming the mimimal increases given to local authorities who, almost to a man, were all facing substantial budget pressures across their operations were supposed to deliver this fanciful ideal.

As ever with a lot of SNP policies they claim they are for the 'common man' but really they are simply poplularist moves that are either not costed, a slight of hand or in the case of bridge tolls provide severe restrictions on future investments.


Prescription charges - Reduces revenue to the NHS just when all budgets are coming under pressure, effectively this policy has meant reduced spending elsewhere in the NHS.

Free hospital parking - Zero infrastructure upgrades to allow all the extra cars that now try to park meaning people who HAVE to drive to hospitals can now no longer get parked

No bridge tolls - Has removed the easiest and most effective way of raising revenue to maintian the infrastucture and of course to build more (new forth bridge crossing)


Salmond was on the TV two night ago saying that he could maintain current spending and not raise taxes by simply growing the economy to cover the deficit. This is not even school boy economics and is a down right lie, still didn't stop him spouting it on national TV though did it!?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

You're confusing England with the United Kingdom.

---

A common misconception, perpetrated by successive UK governments, and reinforced by reporting in the "national" media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

Imagine Nigel Farage got elected and he held the balance of power.

---

We would be declaring war on Belgium within a week.:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I think what we saw in the 80s and 90s was that Scottish people see life in a different way from those south of the border. There is an argument that community and the well being of our neighbours is more important to us than it is in the South.

---

What evidence is there to support this statement? This sounds like your personal romantised view of Scotland not anything real and tangible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

The UK wasn't too bothered about what we thought in the 80s, which pushed us towards devolution. Many would argue that Scotland has fared a lot better since our affairs were put in our hands.

---

Fared a lot better? We have higher unemployment rate and smaller rate of growth than the rest of the UK. Also, we have some of the worst health, deprivation and knife crime problems in Europe.

In the last few years we have seen little investment in schools, hospitals and infrastructure. This chronic lack of investment coupled with current recessionary pressures on budgets paints a bad future for public services in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I don't think the UK is of any more concern to us than the affairs of Ireland, or Holland. They are a trading partner. That said, I don't want to be taking things from England that we aren't entitled to.

I also don't want them taking more than our fare share from us. I think that has been happening less since devolution.

---

The UK are no more than a trading partner? Madness! What about non-devolved powers such as defence that are decided for the whole of the UK by Westminster, are these not important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

The current situation isn't acceptable to anyone. But that's the way democracy works - I always thought the purpose of electing MPs was that they would see to the interests of their constituents.

Personally, I am proud of the fact that Scotland looks after its people better than other parts of the UK. If England insists on holding the purse strings, we can hardly be blamed for putting our case for the money we are due.

---

What have the UK governement done in the last few years that has been detrimentasl to Scotland.

What are we due from the England? We already get a higher per capita government spend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

What evidence is there to support this statement? This sounds like your personal romantised view of Scotland not anything real and tangible.

Fared a lot better? We have higher unemployment rate and smaller rate of growth than the rest of the UK. Also, we have some of the worst health, deprivation and knife crime problems in Europe.

In the last few years we have seen little investment in schools, hospitals and infrastructure. This chronic lack of investment coupled with current recessionary pressures on budgets paints a bad future for public services in Scotland.

The UK are no more than a trading partner? Madness! What about non-devolved powers such as defence that are decided for the whole of the UK by Westminster, are these not important?

What have the UK governement done in the last few years that has been detrimentasl to Scotland.

What are we due from the England? We already get a higher per capita government spend.

---

Your points answered in turn:

1. The evidence is that Scotland voted Labour, whilst England voted Tory. One party famously espoused the notion that "there is no thing as society", the other party opposed this view of the world.

2. We also have a health service that is superior to England's, free care for the elderly, free further education, free travel for the elderly. The deprivation, poor health and knife crime can hardly be laid at the SNP's door.

3. I don't know where you live, but within a five mile radius of my house there are three new high schools.

4. Devolve the defence, and then we won't have to keep paying to maintain a ludicrously outdated notion of our place in the world.

5. The UK government haven't done much that has been to Scotland's disadvantage since we got devolution. Is that a coincidence?

6. We aren't due anything other than what we earn in Scotland. In the past we haven't even been given that. I certainly don't see England as a charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Your points answered in turn:

1. The evidence is that Scotland voted Labour, whilst England voted Tory. One party famously espoused the notion that "there is no thing as society", the other party opposed this view of the world.

---

Only around 60% of eligible people over 18 vote in a election and the winner only needs a simple majority to win, many people voted for parties other than Labour in Scotland. This means that is a stetch to aggregrate the Labour attitude to society to the an opinion for an entire nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

2. We also have a health service that is superior to England's, free care for the elderly, free further education, free travel for the elderly. The deprivation, poor health and knife crime can hardly be laid at the SNP's door.

---

2. Why has our superior public services not solved the problems that our society faces? You extol the virtues of our public services yet many social indicators show that Scotland is worst off than England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

3. I don't know where you live, but within a five mile radius of my house there are three new high schools.

---

These schools were certainly not built in the last 2 years. Link to SNP schools building plan. 14 schools (only 3 high schools) in 5 years is pretty poor.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...new.5685401.jp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

4. Devolve the defence, and then we won't have to keep paying to maintain a ludicrously outdated notion of our place in the world.

---

Devolving defence is a ridiculous notion. You seem to miss the point that military spending supports many jobs and industries in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

5. The UK government haven't done much that has been to Scotland's disadvantage since we got devolution. Is that a coincidence?

---

It's not a coincidence, the whole pupose of devolution is to give Scotland more power over our affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

6. We aren't due anything other than what we earn in Scotland. In the past we haven't even been given that. I certainly don't see England as a charity.

---

In the past...but now we get more than everone else per capita. We currently get more than we earn, going by your logic govt. spending should be cut in Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

Only around 60% of eligible people over 18 vote in a election and the winner only needs a simple majority to win, many people voted for parties other than Labour in Scotland. This means that is a stetch to aggregrate the Labour attitude to society to the an opinion for an entire nation.

What other way can we guage how people want their society to operate than a democratic election?

2. Why has our superior public services not solved the problems that our society faces? You extol the virtues of our public services yet many social indicators show that Scotland is worst off than England.

I can't see how we can fix them if we don't invest in solutions. Maybe Scotland started from a lower point than England?

These schools were certainly not built in the last 2 years. Link to SNP schools building plan. 14 schools (only 3 high schools) in 5 years is pretty poor.

Well, actually they were, I'm thinking of Craigroyston, Broughton and Craigmount. We also have a new campus being constructed at St Augustines/Forrester, and a school ready to be occupied at Tynecastle.

I don't know how they judge these things, I am going by the evidence of my own eyes.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...new.5685401.jp



Devolving defence is a ridiculous notion. You seem to miss the point that military spending supports many jobs and industries in Scotland.

Please quantify "ridiculous", sounds like a personal opinion - something you accused me of earlier.

I don't want to live in a country whose main industry is waging war on others.

It's not a coincidence, the whole pupose of devolution is to give Scotland more power over our affairs.

Thank you.

In the past...but now we get more than everone else per capita. We currently get more than we earn, going by your logic govt. spending should be cut in Scotland.

I don't want to depend on England's "genorosity".

---

I just feel, in the modern world, small is beautiful. We can achieve more by operating as smaller units. The NHS in Scotland is working better than England because it is a more manageable size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Try being the operative word.

---

Right.....

So it's okay to accept money from bigots, just so long as they're not very good at convincing other people to be bigots :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Right.....

So it's okay to accept money from bigots, just so long as they're not very good at convincing other people to be bigots :greengrin

---

What about support and backing from bigots and criminals?

Bigots: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/p...b-snp-1.926891

Criminals: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/p...iser-1.1019813

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

What about support and backing?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/p...b-snp-1.926891

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/p...iser-1.1019813

:rolleyes:

---

Don't see anything about financial backing there. So it's not really the same is it now?

Certainly nothing in your links about several hundred thousands of pounds, say, from a man who tried to use his influence and wealth to stop the repeal of Section 28.

I've not even mentioned that a month after getting the donation the SNP dropped their policy of re-regulating the bus network :rolleyes:.

Bear in mind, this is in response to the description of the SNP as the "only social democrats" :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Don't see anything about financial backing there. So it's not really the same is it now?

Certainly nothing in your links about several hundred thousands of pounds, say, from a man who tried to use his influence and wealth to stop the repeal of Section 28.

I've not even mentioned that a month after getting the donation the SNP dropped their policy of re-regulating the bus network :rolleyes:.

Bear in mind, this is in response to the description of the SNP as the "only social democrats" :greengrin

---

What about Ecclestone and his 1mil to New Labour? Suddenly proposals to ban tobacco advertising in F1 vanished. To name but many.

Luckily for Labour, it has pals in all the right media places. No-one lost their job, no-one resigned and no-one really asked anything more than an awkward question or two at PMQs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

What about Ecclestone and his 1mil to New Labour? Suddenly proposals to ban tobacco advertising in F1 vanished. To name but many.

Luckily for Labour, it has pals in all the right media places. No-one lost their job, no-one resigned and no-one really asked anything more than an awkward question or two at PMQs.

---

What's that got to do with whether the SNP can call themselves 'social democrats'?

Anyway Labour returned Ecclestone's money. What hapened to Souter's donation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

What's that got to do with whether the SNP can call themselves 'social democrats'?

Anyway Labour returned Ecclestone's money. What hapened to Souter's donation?

---

Good for them. What principled people they must be. :agree:

I believe the SNP kept Souter's donation as perhaps they felt they had nothing to hide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

Good for them. What principled people they must be. :agree:

I believe the SNP kept Souter's donation as perhaps they felt they had nothing to hide?

---

Or perhaps no one else was going to bankroll their election campaign?

Can you be a 'social democrat' and happily be funded by someone who spent a million trying to keep Section 28?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

Or perhaps no one else was going to bankroll their election campaign?

Can you be a 'social democrat' and happily be funded by someone who spent a million trying to keep Section 28?

---

STF also gave 100K to the SNP in the interests of a level playing field, so a pretty hefty donation.

I know it sticks in the craw of loyal labouristas because they might feel that the SNP 'bought' the election of 2007 and denied them their right to govern. Perhaps they are right, but as we'll see in the 2010 general election, the same thing will happen. It's who has the money to bankroll an election. A skint party never won anything, I would venture.

Labour are bankrolled by the Unions and other sundry donors who may no doubt expect to end up in the House of Lords for their troubles - but they're close to not having funds to run an election campaign. The Tories are bankrolled by various businesses and private individuals - they're not short of funds. God knows how the LibDems scrape together an existence, but I suspect it is as dirty and as sullied as everyone else, including the SNP.

It's part of the problem of having a party system. Only a party can win an election and as such, people bankroll it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

What other way can we guage how people want their society to operate than a democratic election?

---

How can you generalise the feeling of a nation by quoting the number of Labour seats won in an election through first past the post. Also, people didn't just vote Labour because they opposed the Tory concept of society. If someone voted for labour purely through personal reasons this completely invalidates your already tenuous link between voting Labour and caring for others. You are trying to justify your personal view of Scotland using a wholly inappropriate and outdated concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I can't see how we can fix them if we don't invest in solutions. Maybe Scotland started from a lower point than England?

---

The NHS started at the same time all accross the UK more than 50 years ago. How far behind England was Scotland that half a century of free healthcare for all coundn't eradicate the difference. The problems in Scotland are caused by the work shy, fast food eating, alcoholic, kinfe carrying reprobates that populate large parts of this country. You claim that Scottish people care more for each other this is contrary to the fact that people in Scotland knife each other more often than many places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Well, actually they were, I'm thinking of Craigroyston, Broughton and Craigmount. We also have a new campus being constructed at St Augustines/Forrester, and a school ready to be occupied at Tynecastle.

I don't know how they judge these things, I am going by the evidence of my own eyes.

---

Mostly these things are judged by the facts such as contained in the link I posted. These are Labour PFI schools from before the SNP got into power. The SNP have given only the OK for 14 new Schools to be built in the next 3 years and before this there was no new schools commissioned for 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Please quantify "ridiculous", sounds like a personal opinion - something you accused me of earlier.

I don't want to live in a country whose main industry is waging war on others.

---

How can you devolve part of the defense budget to a part of the UK. Defense needs to be coherent across all regions, i think this is quitte a simplistic concept.

Our main industry in this country is not waging war but you live in a country where many people and areas rely on defense spending. Would you deny these people work because of foreign policy decisions made by Blair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

I don't want to depend on England's "genorosity".

---

The public services in Scotland are superior because we get more government money per capita than the rest of the UK. The services you are proud of are founded on England's "generosity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Mikey

How can you generalise the feeling of a nation by quoting the number of Labour seats won in an election through first past the post. Also, people didn't just vote Labour because they opposed the Tory concept of society. If someone voted for labour purely through personal reasons this completely invalidates your already tenuous link between voting Labour and caring for others. You are trying to justify your personal view of Scotland using a wholly inappropriate and outdated concept.

It's not my personal view actually. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the mood of the nation, or what their philosophy is. I used a rough tool to assess what people want from their government, and assumed that the majority of voters would consider issues like public spending to be deciding factors in how they voted.

The fairest thing I can say is that, in my opinion, people voted for the party which wanted to invest more in public services. I then matched this to a trend in Scottish life which has shown a form of social democracy, and care for others in the community.

It's not scientific, no, but a lot of people have spoken about this aspect of Scottish politics over the years. One thing we do know, is that Scottish voting patterns have been different from English ones for many years.

The NHS started at the same time all accross the UK more than 50 years ago. How far behind England was Scotland that half a century of free healthcare for all coundn't eradicate the difference. The problems in Scotland are caused by the work shy, fast food eating, alcoholic, kinfe carrying reprobates that populate large parts of this country. You claim that Scottish people care more for each other this is contrary to the fact that people in Scotland knife each other more often than many places.

Since devolution, the NHS in Scotland has taken on a different shape (in some areas such as mental health, a radically different shape) from what is delivered in England.

I can't really make an objective comment on your reading of the Scottish character. I agree there could well be psychosocial reasons for Scotland having poorer health, that are uniquely Scottish. A recent paper identified a "Glasgow Factor" which compared Glaswegian health with that in similarly deprived areas of England. The Glaswegians were worse, nobody can say why, but your reasons could well be valid.

What are we meant to do though, the problems are there, we should try to fix them. Given that we could well be looking at a uniquely Scottish cause, I would say that a Scottish answer has to be found.


Mostly these things are judged by the facts such as contained in the link I posted. These are Labour PFI schools from before the SNP got into power. The SNP have given only the OK for 14 new Schools to be built in the next 3 years and before this there was no new schools commissioned for 2 years.


They are new schools that have been built, post devolution, where the Scottish people decided what their priorities are.

How can you devolve part of the defense budget to a part of the UK. Defense needs to be coherent across all regions, i think this is quitte a simplistic concept.

You can't really, it would be for an independent Scotland to decide its defence priorities. Maybe, given the number of Scottish soldiers who have died for Britain, we might not be so keen to keep wasting money fighting wars that have no relevance to us.

I think the money would be better spent developing better things for people in places like Central Fife to look forward to, rather than consigning them to a life as cannon fodder.

Our main industry in this country is not waging war but you live in a country where many people and areas rely on defense spending. Would you deny these people work because of foreign policy decisions made by Blair?

Many people in Colombia rely on Cocaine production, in Afghanistan on Opium poppies. Its a personal thing, but I believe that war mongering comes into the same spectrum of evil. Not something I want to be part of.

The public services in Scotland are superior because we get more government money per capita than the rest of the UK. The services you are proud of are founded on England's "generosity".

You've got a low opinion of what Scotland contributed to the union. I agree though, it would be better if we ran our own affairs. I think we have fundamental differences, and continuing to force us and England to walk a path neither of us is comfortable with is not the best way.

---

Interesting discussion here mate. Sorry if I've got more verbal diahorrea than usual, I'm in the middle of writing an essay, and I am typing faster than I can think at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Since devolution, the NHS in Scotland has taken on a different shape (in some areas such as mental health, a radically different shape) from what is delivered in England.

---

True, but this does not always mean it is better does it. Not saying it's not but having seen a number of efforts to compare the record of health provision in Scotland, England and Wales (which all now have differing approaches) it's fair to say that we might be performing better in some areas but not in others.

It is clear though that in general Scotlands health is still not as good as other equivalent countries which should be a concern to all and is a clear indication that our helath service and critically the educational part of that still has a long way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

What are we meant to do though, the problems are there, we should try to fix them. Given that we could well be looking at a uniquely Scottish cause, I would say that a Scottish answer has to be found.

---

Which I think devloved powers have allowed! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

They are new schools that have been built, post devolution, where the Scottish people decided what their priorities are

---

The point here though was the effective full stop the SNP have applied to school building which links to my earlier comments about the SNP and their popularist policies. They talk a lot but actually have failed Scotland badly on the school building programme. They killed PFI with no replacement and therefore killed the substantial investment that was bringing badly needed new schools to all areas of the country.
Surely you can admit that on school building the SNP have failed Scotland completely and that the 14 or so recently announced is far too little far too late and that this self imposed moratorium on building/planning can only have a negative effect on Scotlands education efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

True, but this does not always mean it is better does it. Not saying it's not but having seen a number of efforts to compare the record of health provision in Scotland, England and Wales (which all now have differing approaches) it's fair to say that we might be performing better in some areas but not in others.

It is clear though that in general Scotlands health is still not as good as other equivalent countries which should be a concern to all and is a clear indication that our helath service and critically the educational part of that still has a long way to go.

Which I think devloved powers have allowed! :greengrin

The point here though was the effective full stop the SNP have applied to school building which links to my earlier comments about the SNP and their popularist policies. They talk a lot but actually have failed Scotland badly on the school building programme. They killed PFI with no replacement and therefore killed the substantial investment that was bringing badly needed new schools to all areas of the country.
Surely you can admit that on school building the SNP have failed Scotland completely and that the 14 or so recently announced is far too little far too late and that this self imposed moratorium on building/planning can only have a negative effect on Scotlands education efforts.

---

This is all fair comment. I seem to have gotten myself into the position of defending the SNP's performance. I am not an SNP supporter, but I do support a devolved/independent Scotland.

Really, all I wanted to do was highlight the fact that Scotland and the UK are very much seperate entities these days. What I was curious to find out is how the English would react to the "balanced parliament" situation.

It's all a bit hypothetical, as the way the race is going it looks like the electorate hate all the parties equally, and would maybe welcome a situation where people are forced to negotiate and compromise.

I will defend the devolved parliament on health though. I am impressed with the SNP's approach to the problem. They realise that you don't get people better, or keep them well, when their lives are a mess. So housing, education and employment are linked.

I think this holistic approach to running a nation, is at least a way of saying where we should want to be. Of course, implementing it is a different matter, but I think a smaller country has more chance of integrating things than a large country.

We all know that Scots have a higher incidence of lifestyle related disease. What we really have to tackle is the reasons why we seem to have this "***** it" attitude to life. I reckon changes on that scale will take more than the 12 years that we have had devolution.

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

This is all fair comment. I seem to have gotten myself into the position of defending the SNP's performance. I am not an SNP supporter, but I do support a devolved/independent Scotland.

Really, all I wanted to do was highlight the fact that Scotland and the UK are very much seperate entities these days. What I was curious to find out is how the English would react to the "balanced parliament" situation.

It's all a bit hypothetical, as the way the race is going it looks like the electorate hate all the parties equally, and would maybe welcome a situation where people are forced to negotiate and compromise.

I will defend the devolved parliament on health though. I am impressed with the SNP's approach to the problem. They realise that you don't get people better, or keep them well, when their lives are a mess. So housing, education and employment are linked.

I think this holistic approach to running a nation, is at least a way of saying where we should want to be. Of course, implementing it is a different matter, but I think a smaller country has more chance of integrating things than a large country.

We all know that Scots have a higher incidence of lifestyle related disease. What we really have to tackle is the reasons why we seem to have this "***** it" attitude to life. I reckon changes on that scale will take more than the 12 years that we have had devolution.

---

Careful, we are in danger of agreeing here :greengrin

I too have no difficulties in seeing Scotland independent and allowing us to have a completly 'local' approach to all aspects, however I do have a problem with a lot of the SNP rhetoric and their rather popularist approach to how they have went about their governence of the devolved powers already.

I certainly agree that a hung palry in London may be no bad thing, they way the Tories and Labour have reacted to this idea only confirms to me how good it might be!! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

There are 1039 more police officers in Scotland since the SNP came to power.

Class sizes in Primary Schools are at a record low, although they haven't met the target of 18 yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

How many are on the beat?

The target of 18 per class has been all but abandoned hasn't it? They have failed.

Your last statement is just plain wrong.

---

28 or 29 in my daughter's P3 class now. There seems to be a new pupil every month added on to the total.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

:greengrin


Careful, we are in danger of agreeing here :greengrin

I too have no difficulties in seeing Scotland independent and allowing us to have a completly 'local' approach to all aspects, however I do have a problem with a lot of the SNP rhetoric and their rather popularist approach to how they have went about their governence of the devolved powers already.

I certainly agree that a hung palry in London may be no bad thing, they way the Tories and Labour have reacted to this idea only confirms to me how good it might be!! :greengrin

---

The way I read it, Salmond would love to set up a situation where London is seen as the "bad guys". If you were to add anti Scottish feeling in England to that, the door would be wide open for full independence. The union would be attacked from both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

:greengrin


Careful, we are in danger of agreeing here :greengrin

I too have no difficulties in seeing Scotland independent and allowing us to have a completly 'local' approach to all aspects, however I do have a problem with a lot of the SNP rhetoric and their rather popularist approach to how they have went about their governence of the devolved powers already.

I certainly agree that a hung palry in London may be no bad thing, they way the Tories and Labour have reacted to this idea only confirms to me how good it might be!! :greengrin

---

There's obviously a big chunk of self-interest in what Labour and the Conservatives are saying (i.e. not wanting to share power) but I don't understand why people think a hung parliament would be a good idea. The SNP have struggled to get things done up here because of party politics.

I'd rather have a Labour majority than a hung parliament. At least we'll know where we are then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

The way I read it, Salmond would love to set up a situation where London is seen as the "bad guys". If you were to add anti Scottish feeling in England to that, the door would be wide open for full independence. The union would be attacked from both sides.

---

The SNP and Plaid are setting this up by talking about 'protecting Wales / Scotland from budget cuts', which is an entirely unreasonable proposition. If we do get a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will be the key party, the SNP and Plaid will be sidelined, Wales and Scotland will get their fair share of budget cuts and the SNP and Plaid will scream blue murder about cuts being inflicted by the 'London-based parties'.

Folk will fall for it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The SNP and Plaid are setting this up by talking about 'protecting Wales / Scotland from budget cuts', which is an entirely unreasonable proposition. If we do get a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will be the key party, the SNP and Plaid will be sidelined, Wales and Scotland will get their fair share of budget cuts and the SNP and Plaid will scream blue murder about cuts being inflicted by the 'London-based parties'.

Folk will fall for it though.

---

You could argue that hung Parliament has acted as a break on some of the more radical things the SNP have wanted to do. It's funny how our government is being held up as a model for the rest of the UK these days.

I agree about the nationalist parties. They can't really lose in this situation from what I can see. The only thing that will re-dress the balance is for Westmister to play up the idea of a United Kingdom.

I can't see that being a vote winner. It seems to me that the English have never been able to get their head around the idea of the union. Namely the four countries pulling together.

From what I can make out, they see as funny neighbours who are guests in their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

Say the SNP do end up holding the balance of power at Westminster, and manage to get the concessions they are after from the UK government. Scotland is hardly going to be popular in England is it?

Let's face it, there's a thinly veiled contempt for Brown's Scottishness as it is. He is going to find himself between a rock and a hard place if he has to help out the old country.

---

What will the neighbours think of us?

I think we should get off our knees and not worry too much about about turning English apathy towards Scotland into distaste, simply because we have the audacity to chart our destiny.

Or we could just fall in line with what the Westminster parties want us to do, and be looked after by friendly Mrs Thatcher and the non-smug and non-patronising Mr Blair.