Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

If this is the case then come May 7th get your people out and vote against SNP.

String does not live in Scotland. He can try to influence from Dorset but I've no idea how effective that may be.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
The SNP isn't Scotland and Scotland isn't the SNP. STD and Leanne don't seem to understand those very simple things and it's that attitude that makes groups like the SNP extremely dangerous.

Indeed, they are different things.

The reality is that if all Scots want to directly influence government policy, and move it back left, then they should vote for Labour.

The numbers are simple; the bolstering of Labour by an extra 50 seats or so would swing things.

If they choose to vote SNP then they must accept the limitations a minority party has within Westminster. But in this situation they have no cause for complaint if they find themselves marginalised by the larger parties.

The choice was theirs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

there is evidence, if the polls play out that some who voted no will support SNP in this election. .

Probably because they believed the leader of the SNP when he said about the referendum that....

"My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."

Many No voters will believe they can now safely vote SNP because they like the local candidate, without it risking a neverendum.

.string.

In the Andrew Marr Show Mr Miliband said that he would not enter into any deal with the SNP. It's taken him some time to come with such a statement; no coalition, Yes that was said but on a possible deal there was nothing. That led to the logical conclusion that the Labour Party would ally itself with a Party that wanted to damage the Union and the charge of such complicity by the Conservatives.

Now Miliband has made that statement some of that concern is reduced and the Conservatives, if they are to be fair, should tone down their criticism in that respect.

But the issue will not go away completely, mud sticks, especially when it is was stirred up by the Labour obscuration on the matter.

So it seems that according to the Polls, we may have a hung Goverment, Red or Blue, which has to rule by the consensus of all Parties, although not all at the same time.

One could argue that is true Democracy.

.string.

In the light of all of this and current polls, Labour's claim that the only way to stop the wicked Tories is for Scots to vote Labour rings true.

Vote SNP and get Tories.

... or simply vote Tory.



Edit: PS This is Dorset's fool-proof way of altering the voting pattern of Scotland.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

In the light of all of this and current polls, Labour's claim that the only way to stop the wicked Tories is for Scots to vote Labour rings true.

Vote SNP and get Tories.

... or simply vote Tory.



Edit: PS This is Dorset's fool-proof way of altering the voting pattern of Scotland.

Hmmm....

I'll stick with vote SNP get SNP

Good luck with it though. You might need it seeing as there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MP's

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Probably because they believed the leader of the SNP when he said about the referendum that....

"My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."

Many No voters will believe they can now safely vote SNP because they like the local candidate, without it risking a neverendum.

I agree Hamish. There's a first :T

The only point I'd bring is that Alex is no longer the leader and new leaders have different ideas. Not that I am expecting a referendum anytime soon but you cannot hold Nicola responsible for what someone else said.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I agree Hamish. There's a first :T

The only point I'd bring is that Alex is no longer the leader and new leaders have different ideas. Not that I am expecting a referendum anytime soon but you cannot hold Nicola responsible for what someone else said.

Presumably you won't hold any of the parties to account if they change their mind on the 'Vow' or the Smith Commission, as long as the party leadership changes at the same time?

good principle

and by the way : why do you think the good people of Yorkshire are worth less than those of Scotland?

Better_Days

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Thanks for your honesty. There are posts which are informative & interesting but on the whole I feel this thread usually ends up with the Snp and its supporters being ridiculed for being so stupid to actually like & want to vote for them.

It's pretty pointless discussing how the finances stack up as it was a No vote. Also at this moment in time, had we voted yes, we'd still be in the union till next spring. The IFS had good & bad to say about all the parties & their policy regarding growth & the deficit. We are very much in the dark about any parties cuts after the election aren't we?

I'd say the media have sucked you in, show me one article where Nicola Sturgeon is pushing for independence. This is a general election, it's everyone except the SNP who keep on about indy. It's a tactic to turn people off but it appears to be failing. The SNP are riding high, a lot of Scots seem to trust them and like them more than the alternatives.

I think my frustration is coming out a little in this thread as everything I hear through the mainstream media right now is anti SNP. Can you understand how it feels to Scots that last year we were begged to remain yet now it feels like we are to be ostracised if we dare to vote for them? It does not feel like a happy Union at all.

I think I now have a better understanding of where you are coming from, thanks.

With regard to your last paragraph, I think the important thing to remember is that we have a mainly right wing media, especially the newspapers. As such they are for the Union (hence the 'lovebombing' that you mentioned earlier, during the referendum campaign).

But the SNP is broadly left wing so now we are running up to the election any left wing views are more likely to be vilified in the press. As there are more right wing newspapers they will be shouting the loudest.

Added to that it appears from the polling that the result is going to be very close which seems to be adding to the already high levels of desperation (as evidenced by the number of unfunded attempts at vote winning policies that have been announced).

It is inevitable leading up to an election that things are going to get very heated. But I do not interpret criticism of the SNP as criticism of those who vote for them, or the Scottish people in general, any more than criticism of the main parties in England are criticisms of the English.

I'd say be aware that the views expressed in the media (especially the newspapers) are not necessarily representative of the views of the English or the UK as a whole.

The SNP state, perfectly reasonably, they want to create a better Scotland, and during the referendum campaign stated in their view the best way to do this is if Scotland is independent. So it is not surprising there has been debate around the issue, especially given the dichotomy between the 'no' vote, and the level of success the SNP are predicted to achieve on 7th May. Having had a look at the SNP's website statements regarding the current stance on Independence is conspicuous by its absence http://www.snp.org/search-content/independence (although I am happy to be corrected - the search function may have not worked properly)

With regard to finances, I do think it is relevant. (Thanks to Hamish for the link to the blog) If the SNP do end up in coalition, or some sort of informal agreement, then their past fiscal policies are an indication of the stance they may take in the future.

It is, I think a good thing that the referendum increased participation in the political process in Scotland, but sadly this also seems to have been accompanied by defensiveness and some extreme views on both sides.

zagubov

Froggitt wrote: »

Because the country cant afford it......it would be more bust than it currently is.

England is part of one of the globe's financial success stories apparently, but has the third highest HE fees in the world and easily the highest in Europe. How can that possibly be?

It would bust the economy?

Challenge the parties in charge of English HE to make it otherwise, instead of moaning about Scotland trying to fund HE like a typical/normal country would.