Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If you say so.





I don't think you can have one without the other can you ? Voting and 'legitimacy' ? In fact you took the comments made by Theresa May, and turned them into some sort of ramble against the SNP and how I'd missed a point somewhere.

The fact that the Home Secretary of the UK is making such statements is fundamentally wrong, whichever legally recognised political party she directs them against. The fact that you have sadly yet to admit she and those who come out with these sorts of comments are wrong.. instead preferring to ignore comments such as these, and concentrate instead on shaky youtube videos which are months old, and twitter comments that are in some cases years old.. Well, I think that says a lot.

Somehow though, you seem to think that I should be the only one apologising for misguided comments made by some in this campaign ( or in fact months before it started ) ? I think you're being just a little unfair. I am no more responsible for those youtube clips, than you are for Theresa May.

Lets leave this here. Theresa May has done more for the SNP in the last few days than those youtube clips will ever do against them. I'll be betting, though I haven't checked that most of those SNP members are standing in very closely contested seats too.. conveniently.

No I won't leave it there.
Have you missed a point, or are you spinning a misrepresentation of of what I wrote .... I assume the former to avoid getting too worked up.

I will try to explain again but perforce it seems be necessary to do it at length.

You will find below what I wrote, where I have higlighted the key words that you seem to have missed>

string wrote:

I don't think any have suggested that the SNP should not be allowed to vote, but there is a problem with legitimacy.

The basic problem, Shakey, is the perceived legitimacy of having a minor Party (of any origin) involved in the Government of the United Kingdom when that party is disloyal to the UK even to the point of active plotting for its dismemberment.

That is, for your enlightenment, quite different to UKIP, which (IMHO) is misguided in the extreme, which is actually loyal to the UK.

So in the first para I mention the absence of a suggestion that the SNP should not vote but flag that there is nevertheless a problem with legitimacy.

In the next sentence I state that the problem is with perceived legitimacy, specifically with being part of the UK Goverment[/], which is the group of MPs who are charged with the day-to-day management of the country, not other MPs and not even those in the ruling party/ties who have not been consigned Goverment posts.


Now a word about legitimacy - there is a difference between the application of that word for MPs and those in the Goverment. I n the former, it is quite simple, there is an election for each as an individual and if they win that election, they have a right to be an MP (if they take the oath) and therefore vote; They have legitimacy. But there is no such process in the formation of the Goverment, their legitimacy derives from them having the confidence or acquiescence of the House as a whole which is a perceived legitimacy. In the same way the legitimacy of the members of a coalition derives from them being invited by the ruling party because they are perceived to be worthy partners.

To that must be added the perceived legitimacy of the country as a whole, which is why I used the word minor since obviously the largest party has the greater legitimacy.

So ... the SNP has no automatic legitimacy by right to form part of the Government, as demonstrated by the reaction of the other parties, and the root cause of that is because the SNP is disloyal to the UK. The formerly predominant Labour Party was not disloyal.

Shakethedisease

Better_Days wrote: »

The thing is the rUK don't know what the appetite is in Scotland for another referendum (as they don't live there ) and there is nothing that I could find on the SNP's website that stated their position either way. It really isn't surprising that there is debate about this when there is uncertainty and it looks as if the SNP (who are pro independence) are set to gain many more seats.

Just to add, I find it wearing too, but with lack of clarity there will continue to be debate on such an important issue. And if I hear the phrase 'hard working families' again I think I will go quietly and comprehensively mad. There wont be long to wait.

The only time it's every mentioned these days is by a unionist party in newspapers, or when the SNP is asked.

Firstly I think they'll want to see electoral control completely devolved. Not that that would be a barrier, but it would solve a lot of legal ambiguity. Secondly there's no point holding one until they're reasonably sure ( as in 99% sure ) they'll win it next time. To hold another one only to lose it once again would be madness.

Thirdly perhaps, ruling out or in another referendum is a negotiating tactic in itself as in 'OK Ed, we'll promise not to propose holding another referendum within this Westminster parliament.. then you can stop all this breaking up the UK nonsense.. but in return we'd like to see x, y and z'. Mabye along the lines of a full public consultation into what powers exactly the Scottish electorate would like to see fully devolved ( remember that upwards of 60% consistently say they want much more than currently ).. Something along those lines. But am only speculating.

Who knows. But right now, it's not even on the agenda until at least May 16 re manifesto's. The SNP will work with Labour more or less within this parliament on a vote by vote basis should Labour take power. But they will push for Smith commission promises, and further powers too during the five years. They won't go along with just everything though. And they have set out their stall pretty much well in advance on what they will and won't go along with. So although there does seem to be a bit of Labour 'daring the SNP to vote things down, like it or lump it' doing the rounds. In practice Labour would need the votes ( if Labour form govt), and if the SNP don't vote with them, well it's been laid out on the table already.

However, 'freezing the SNP out' or being seen to would be a mistake for Miliband re the Union imo. Not only does it alienate and disenfranchise those who voted SNP, but if the SNP take the majority of seats up here, then find their MP's are simply ignored and unable to take a full part. Scotland itself will feel more cut off from Westminster than ever.

It should be remembered that Labour aren't ruling out 'working with' Plaid or the SDLP.

"Hard working families"... I agree with you.. :eek:

.string.

In my book, Plaid and the SDLP and ST plus the Greens for that matter are all in the same disloyal corner as the SNP, some worse than others of course.

.string.

Re defence: The Europeans and the UK to a lesser extent, have been sponging off the Americans for some time, spending insufficiently to be able to take care of ourselves by ourseves and content to let the USA foot the bill.
.
Spending money on defence may be an annoying thing to have to do, but it is a necessary evil at least for the moment.

But I expect a few pounds could spared on sofas for some to hide behind.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

No I won't leave it there.
Have you missed a point, or are you spinning a misrepresentation of of what I wrote .... I assume the former to avoid getting too worked up.

I will try to explain again but perforce it seems be necessary to do it at length.

You will find below what I wrote, where I have higlighted the key words that you seem to have missed>



So in the first para I mention the absence of a suggestion that the SNP should not vote but flag that there is nevertheless a problem with legitimacy.

In the next sentence I state that the problem is with perceived legitimacy, specifically with being part of the UK Goverment[/], which is the group of MPs who are charged with the day-to-day management of the country, not other MPs and not even those in the ruling party/ties who have not been consigned Goverment posts.

Now a word about legitimacy - there is a difference between the application of that word for MPs and those in the Goverment. I n the former, it is quite simple, there is an election for each as an individual and if they win that election, they have a right to be an MP (if they take the oath) and therefore vote; They have legitimacy. But there is no such process in the formation of the Goverment, their legitimacy derives from them having the confidence or acquiescence of the House as a whole which is a perceived legitimacy. In the same way the legitimacy of the members of a coalition derives from them being invited by the ruling party because they are perceived to be worthy partners.

To that must be added the perceived legitimacy of the country as a whole, which is why I used the word minor since obviously the largest party has the greater legitimacy.

So ... the SNP has no automatic legitimacy by right to form part of the Government, as demonstrated by the reaction of the other parties, and the root cause of that is because the SNP is disloyal to the UK. The formerly predominant Labour Party was not disloyal.

However, you failed to state that what Theresa May said was wrong in the context of a UK wide election. She was questioning the very legitimacy of SNP MP's themselves. Then you went on to list 6 rather sneery answers that any SNP supporters would give re Youtube videos in the Telegraph. Then got annoyed when I didn't fall over backwards apologising on the SNP's behalf. Theresa May's comments were dismissed as something along the lines of 'the SNP and their mob will take offence at anything'. Was a little bit of double standards in play imo.

The SNP aren't angling to be part of any government coalition. Nicola Sturgeon ruled that out months ago. It's always reported as Ed Miliband doing so a few weeks ago to great fanfare though. SNP voters, and in fact most even vaguely politically aware Scots are well aware that the SNP won't be forming part of any coalition, or riding round in limo's with red boxes and have been for quite some time. So in actual fact I'm not quite sure where this 'perceived legitimacy' you speak of re the SNP being part of Westminster is actually coming from ?

Could you explain it further ?

Labour and the SNP ( if that's what happens, this election is wide open ) don't have to do any deals in order to put Labour into No 10. It's the five years after that that will count. Miliband is doing a good job so far of killing Scottish Labour off for good at the moment with some of the things he's coming out with. Most of which, from the perspective up here, seem to be much as a result of bowing to Tory hysterics. But I can't say I personally can really blame him. It's not like he's going to turn round and thank the SNP for losing him 30 or 40 MP's that could've given him a far better shot at this election. Sooner or later though, arithmetic, Westminster protocol, the electorate's wishes ( UK wide ) and reality will have to prevail for all political parties. Wouldn't you agree ?

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

... On the the matter of the fair division of the debt : so any faux excuse to renault, as anyone that can make up the nonsense about using a pound as an equal partner, will certainly be able to make up a list of impossible unfair demands on assets and other matters.

However, for the next referendum, it would be wise for the parties to spell out the division of spoils explicitly so all the peoples of the union can judge their fairness and have a UK wide vote.

As for the timing ...

Yes I remember that mindless claim from Salmond that Natland was due a massive "windfall", as he put it, inclusive of 10% of all material assets of England, including the British Museum, Crown Jewels, Embassies, the Armed Forces and so on. It transpired that only a few buildings in Scotland, the Coast Guards etc and a massive debt were in the offing, with exorbitant loan interest rates awaiting in the wings if the debt was not honoured. In that respect I guess we should watch Greece for an object lesson.

.string.

@Shakey - my opinions which I put on that post were my own way before the outbursts from the Conservatives, and I have not even bothered to read the latter and don't intend to research them. I am not a member of any party so have no need to apologise on the Tories behalf. If they have a different view from mine then I prefer mine.

As for the arithmetic, of course that will prevail. However it won't affect the fact that it will soon be take it or leave it time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Well that explains a lot...

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well that explains a lot...

No really. I think it's more a nature of the insults. While people are happy to call Ed Milliband a geek, the Labour party 'clueless'.. Cameron a 'ham faced ( insert word ), the Tory party 'nasty'..

The SNP, get things like 'Nazi scum' ( Ian Smart 4th April, Twitter, senior Labour activist and regular on Scottish political shows ), he has a whole feed like that. Both Jim Murphy and Ms Dugdale follow him, but have never said anything. Nor has anything appeared in the the newspapers. He is far from alone with such descriptions of the SNP above.. More than a few newspapers are also not shy in their overall 'tone' towards the SNP. Boris Johnson also isn't shy. I can't be bothered repeating them.

It does feel slightly insulting to be thought of as someone who would willingly vote for a party that stood for anything of a scale that could be equated to the Nazi's ! Even here I've personally been called an 'extremist' or holding 'extremist views' and a 'cult member'. You even equate the SNP with Sinn Fein a few posts back. Couple that with the fact that anyone online who posts or comments on anything pro-SNP is immediately relegated to the 'vile cybernat' box... I don't think the figures are that surprising. ( I saw the graph not long ago on an Alex Massie article ).

I can't remember the last time I saw anyone who is pro-Labour or Tory called 'an extremist'. UKIP.. well, mabye there's some of the same going on there re insults I dare say.

How's things looking up Aberdeen way anyway ? SNP wipeout, or is there still hope the odd Tory, Lib Dem or Labour MP might hang in there with all that tactical voting going on ?

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

A Welsh party would fight aggressively for those jobs, as would a party representing NI. Obviously the SNP would compete for the jobs to remain in Scotland.

But down in England we do not have a party representing our interests first and foremost.

Perhaps the perceived success of a Scottish National Party might inspire an English National Party.

There are two already, the Conservatives and UKIP.