Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Traditional Labour heartlands demolished, ( which he concentrated on ) .

Actually, he says clearly what he concentrated on.

The areas the strongest Yes support....

I decided to look primarily at Labour seats – including some with colossal majorities – in areas which voted yes to independence, or where the result was very close.

And then goes on to note....

Most of the seats in this survey are in areas which returned a particularly strong yes vote in September, where the SNP attraction will naturally be greater; in future rounds of research we may find a different pattern where support for independence was lower.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

The conservative did of course try to change the election boundaries so that they were more equal in terms of voters per MP.

Labour of course opposed this fairness as it wasn't to their electoral advantage
and the LibDem in their usual venal childish way stamped their foot about something or other.

Interesting to speculate what the differences would have been, had the reforms gone through

Yeah, as I recall the LibDems were upset because they lost the referendum on their reform of the Lords. I still don't know how they felt justified in not backing a perfectly sensible and democratic reform. The LibDem proposal for Lords reform was a Pig's Breakfast of a reform in my opinion - yet another bunch of politicans vying with the H of P for attention, 12 year terms and so on. The House of Lords could maybe do with some reform but more from an meritocracy viewpoint, otherwise we end up with a lot of pretty boys and girls, laced with old lag failed politicians, making a career out of it. The proposal was half baked but out of pique they blocked what should have been a quid proquo in policy terms twith the torie3s.

Mind you, I think it would have meant the loss of some Scottish constituencies (those wicked Tories plotting agaqinst Scotland again) who are over-represented, or so it is said.

.string.

elantan wrote: »

Generali wrote:

The SNP seem pretty happy to ignore the result and force independence on an unwilling UK.

Again ,,, not to point out the bleeding obvious .... But it is not just the SNP that are fighting for independence ... please do keep up its getting tiring having to correct people often

You made a similar retort to me recently.

Yes it is obvious - but some explanation would help maybe, just speaking for myself of course.

It is indeed obvious, and accepted, that the SNP were not the only Scots voting for Independence. Some of the latter did it for a variety of reasons and some were not stridently political about it. The reason I single out the SNP is because they were the chief orchestrators of the lies and misinformation that accompanied the Yes Conpaign. That's a deliberate mispelling by the way because the SNP spin was, and still is, a massive con about a Natland which, as is surely clear to everyone by now, did not exist. To be strictly accurate I suppose I could direct some of my comments to the Yes Conpaign but I choose to single out the real villains in the matter. I would not direct my remarks to the Scots who are, after all, my fellow citizens.

So use of the term "the SNP" is to a very small extent, a form of shorthand. If you feel lumped into the term sometimes it's probably just by virtue of association; although you may not have agreed with all that was claimed by them, others who have joined the SNP after the Referendum have clearly swallowed the SNP line hook, line, and stinker.

elantan

Yes there are some people that have ... And a lot of people that havnt

We do have to remember also that the BT campaign was built on lies Mis information and threats

They were certainly the more guilty of the two sides

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Yes there are some people that have ... And a lot of people that havnt

We do have to remember also that the BT campaign was built on lies Mis information and threats

They were certainly the more guilty of the two sides

a very objective assessment

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually, he says clearly what he concentrated on.

The areas the strongest Yes support....
And then goes on to note....

Yes Hamish, that's what I said :-

Traditional Labour heartlands demolished, ( which he concentrated on ) rather than an out and out entire Scottish rout predicted.

Ashcroft also notes :-

My first round of Scottish constituency research therefore required a different approach. I decided to look primarily at Labour seats – including some with colossal majorities.

Some of those Labour seats are the 'safest' in Scotland. And didn't Gordon ( the constituency ) vote No ? Fact is that there will be of course varying stories of success and failure for all parties come May. However, in a lot of seats, the collossal majorities Labour enjoyed.. aren't quite so collossal ? And the bar isn't set so high. Lib Dems are facing total collapse by the looks of it too.. and they have 11 seats.

Whatever anyway. These polls, and yes, snapshots not predictions.. are very bad news for Labour. There's no getting away from it.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

If your primary aim is to avoid having a Tory Government, which is the political aim of many Scots I believe, then voting SNP may well let them in.

The DUP will vote with the Tories if asked. They have 8 seats. As Lord Ashcroft says, every seat that Labour lose in Scotland means an extra seat they have to win in England and Wales. If the SNP take 30 seats in all, taking about 8 off the Lib Dems and the remaining 16 from Labour, Labour have to win an additional 16 seats just to stand still.

Given that the election is so tight, the 16 seats, give or take, that the SNP is likely to win from Labour might very well make the difference between winning and losing the election, especially as the Queen will always ask the leader of the largest party to form a Government first.

If the SNP force another 5 years of Tory rule on Scotland I think it's very plausible for Scots to reconsider how they vote at general elections.

I realise that you find it impossible to conceive of anything that might cause a less than optimal outcome for the SNP but ironically, a big SNP win might just do that!

Really.. what when Milliband is less popular than Cameron in Scotland ? They'd rather have Cameron as PM.

In the Labour-held seats only just under four in ten (38%) said they were dissatisfied with David Cameron and would rather have Ed Miliband as Prime Minister. Meanwhile 44% said either that they were satisfied with Cameron (18%) or that they were dissatisfied but preferred him to Miliband (26%). Just over half (59%) of Labour voters said they would rather see Miliband as PM, as did just under half (49%) of Labour-SNP switchers.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/scottish-battleground/#more-7456

I honestly think people don't really care which party gets in in Westminster much anymore. As long as there is a strong Scottish voice there. The SNP have stated they won't work with the Tories, and that seems to be enough for now. I have to re-iterate that the SNP vote will only strenghten with a Tory government in again. Labour has reaped the whirlwind up here for standing with them so cosily during the ref campaign. But Labour Westminster support has been in decline for a while.. ( from 2011 most likely ). So has the Lib Dems for looking so comfy in coalition with them. And it wouldn't be exactly all sweetness and light for the Tories either...

The second reason is pragmatic. Let’s pretend that the SNP make their huge gains in Scotland and deny Labour the status of largest party in the Commons. Mr Cameron would remain PM, most likely at the head of a minority government. The SNP faction at Westminster would be in a powerful position to make his life difficult from the start, but the real impact of a nationalist “victory” in Scotland would be on Scottish politics before next year’s Holyrood election.

If the SNP won that election too, the party would be in a remarkably powerful position to make demands on the weak and wobbly government in London: another independence referendum? A double-majority rule on Mr Cameron’s EU referendum (Ie the UK can only leave if a majority of Scots say so)? The second-order effects of such things on English politics and the Conservative Party are unlikely to be positive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11386269/SNP-gains-could-keep-Ed-Miliband-out-of-power-but-Conservatives-would-be-mad-to-celebrate.html

It's all arithmetic really and what happens on the day, deals and horse trading.

.string.

Is voting in Scotland based only on hate?

CLAPTON

-the scots have had years to consider the matter of independence

-there was a full 2 year campaign endlessly rerunning the main arguments

-the majority voted against by a substantial margin

-the scots have benefited grossly unfairly from extra per head spending compared to other parts of the UK

-they are over presented in parliament relative to their population

-they get extra investment compared to comparable parts of the UK.


So now, after the prospect of actually standing on their own feet and having to live with all the false economic projections is safely out of the way, they suddenly find all that false courage to (apparently) wish for independence


Sadly one more unattractive trait along with their racist 'anyone but England' and the equally unattractive sentiment of Flower of Scotland


ah well, probably not too long before the separation of the sheep and goats

elantan

CLAPTON wrote: »

a very objective assessment

A very observational assessment .... Even the know side have admitted several times they were telling porkies and threatening people ....

Maybe its another one of those you had to have been here to see kinda things