We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Holyrood propaganda
Comments
-
Thanks for that. I did read somewhere that the majority of Labour governments that this country has had would never have been elected without the Scottish vote.0
-
You'd probably have to go back to Harold Wilson for that to be the case and I wouldn't have thought any before him
A quick check shows there were 70-72 Scottish seats0 -
I guess government is fairly easy when you just get handed a big pot of money to go away and spend, with no responsibility for raising it.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »But actually, the SNP are popular in Scotland as a governing party because they have shown themselves to be surprisingly competent in the role
There isn't the continual agitation to spend less and reduce taxes, because you couldn't if you wanted to.
Not having to worry about the cost of benefits must help a lot. And immigration. And foreign policy and the EU and wars and the national debt and monetary policy. All the difficult areas aren't Holyrood's problem.
Just a glorified county council. Without even council tax."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
I guess government is fairly easy when you just get handed a big pot of money to go away and spend, with no responsibility for raising it.
There isn't the continual agitation to spend less and reduce taxes, because you couldn't if you wanted to.
Not having to worry about the cost of benefits must help a lot. And immigration. And foreign policy and the EU and wars and the national debt and monetary policy. All the difficult areas aren't Holyrood's problem.
Just a glorified county council. Without even council tax.
Crikey.
Glad you explained that to me.
You see I'd thought that administering a budget of billions, balancing spending priorities across an entire country's services, running the various departments which keep the nation moving, and negotiating with Westminster to ensure you don't get screwed all the time must have required at least a modicum of skill and competence.
So I hadn't realised just how ridiculously awful Labour were to have c0cked it up so badly then.:)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well, certainly overwhelmingly competent by comparison to say, UKIP.
I abhor nationalism and would prefer Scotland to stay in the UK, just as I would prefer the UK to stay in Europe.
But actually, the SNP are popular in Scotland as a governing party because they have shown themselves to be surprisingly competent in the role, far better than Labour ever were.
A significant part of the Scottish population that support the SNP in government will still vote 'No' in the referendum for independence. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the SNP have been pretty good overall at running Scotland.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Crikey.
Glad you explained that to me.
You see I'd thought that administering a budget of billions, balancing spending priorities across an entire country's services, running the various departments which keep the nation moving, and negotiating with Westminster to ensure you don't get screwed all the time must have required at least a modicum of skill and competence.
So I hadn't realised just how ridiculously awful Labour were to have c0cked it up so badly then.:)
Surely you don't mean the uber-competent Labour adminsitration that criss-crossed the central belt with motorways without completing them and neglected to join any of Scotland's cities together by continuous motorway.
That dug up the tram systems and struggled to bring them back?
It's not that they're unionist that makes them rubbish (well maybe it is)- it's just that they're, well, rubbish.;)There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
Well, Scotland's about the size of Yorkshire, a bit bigger than the old West Midlands CC, a lot smaller than the GMC. None of those areas felt the need to big itself up with "Minsiters" and a "Parliament". Nope - still not over-impressed. No evidence that the SNP could scale up to running Scotland as an independent country.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »You see I'd thought that administering a budget of billions, balancing spending priorities across an entire country's services, running the various departments which keep the nation moving
But Scotland has its own special Cabinet minister and too many MPs. Isn't that what they're for? How do other regions of the UK make sure they don't get screwed all the time, without even those advantages?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »and negotiating with Westminster to ensure you don't get screwed all the time"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
How recently did these areas run their own HE system, legal systems, diplomatic services, armed forces?Well, Scotland's about the size of Yorkshire, a bit bigger than the old West Midlands CC, a lot smaller than the GMC. None of those areas felt the need to big itself up with "Minsiters" and a "Parliament". Nope - still not over-impressed. .
Not much evidence the tories or labour have been runnning it well as a dependent country, come to that.No evidence that the SNP could scale up to running Scotland as an independent country.
Beats me- that's for England to resolve without Scottish interference.But Scotland has its own special Cabinet minister and too many MPs. Isn't that what they're for? How do other regions of the UK make sure they don't get screwed all the time, without even those advantages?tberry6686 wrote: »I've yet to meet any scotsman who wants to seperate from the UK. .
Of course they don't want to. They wouldn't mind staying in the UK. They don't want the pantomime horse of a combined parliament to be running both countries using a government usually only the bigger country elected.
Much like the West Lothian Question in reverse but on a much bigger scale. Two parliaments of equal powers is the answer. Shame nobody's offering it apart from the SNP.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
Well, there's 59 Scottish Westminster MPs [I think]
Labour had a something like a 250 seat majority in 97
IIRC, Labour would have had a majority twice in 100 years without Scottish MPs. 1997 and 1945.
Could Labour have survived as a mass party for 50 years without ever winning an election? I have my doubts.0 -
IIRC, Labour would have had a majority twice in 100 years without Scottish MPs. 1997 and 1945.
Could Labour have survived as a mass party for 50 years without ever winning an election? I have my doubts.
Can you show you working out for that for - say - 2001?
Labour had a majority of 167
In Scotland ..
Lab 39
LD 12
SNP 7
Con 1
If Scotland was taken totally out of the equation Lab would still have had a healthy majority
In 2005 the Lab majority was 66, 57 more than the Tories0 -
Other years
All I can see from that is that 2 General Elections that Labour won with small majorities would have been hung without the Scottish seats.
I'm therefore calling the claim that Labour would have only had a majority twice in a 100 years as pure propaganda, spin and bunkum
1945
Labour majority: 146
Without Scottish MPs: 143
NO CHANGE
1950
Labour majority: 5
Without Scottish MPs: 2
NO CHANGE
1964
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -9
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT
1966
Labour majority: 98
Without Scottish MPs: 77
NO CHANGE
1974
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
NO CHANGE
1974 MKII
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO HUNG PARLIAMENT
1992
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE
1997
Labour majority: 179
Without Scottish MPs: 139
NO CHANGE
2001
Labour majority: 167
Without Scottish MPs: 129
NO CHANGE
2005
Labour majority: 66
Without Scottish MPs: 43
NO CHANGE0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards