Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

... You just need to read the news to see ..

NO. You need to read the VOW, a copy of which I posted for your, and other's comvenience, and not re-blather spin and opinions as a repost. Read the VOW itself and find something in it which is not being done.

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

Would be interested to know what threat from Russia could be countered by Nukes.

They could well invaded assorted Eastern Bloc countries but the fact that the UK and France have nuclear arms wouldn't really make a blind bit of difference.

You have nukes to stop someone else nuking you or your friends, not to use as a pre-emptive strike to protect Finland.

I see the nuclear deterrent as discouraging anyone from threatening our security
As I can't foresee the future, I'm not sure who to nuke at the moment.

Since you seem to have written off the Baltic states to the new Russian empire, do you see any line in Europe that you would want to defend?

Better_Days

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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:

Thanks for this, very interesting.

Could you just clarify your first point please - what do you mean by completely devolved electoral control?

Second point makes a lot of sense. Third point in conjunction with Salmond and Sturgeon talking about 'holding feet to the fire' is where it starts to get uncertain - are you saying that you think that although the SNP have accepted that they lost the referendum, there are more than one way to skin a cat, and the SNP are now aiming for independence in increments beyond Smith, rather than as a discrete event?

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.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you are getting at here. If the govt (of whatever political leaning) wants to ignore the views of MP's from a particular party, surely they are at liberty to do so, providing they can continue to retain the confidence of the HofC? Aren't all the 'smaller' parties in the same position? And the people who voted for the 'smaller' parties may well feel disenfranchised and cut off from Westminster - but that's the system we currently have.

Or are you saying that it will benefit the Union if Labour work with the SNP because the voice of the those in Scotland who voted for the SNP will be heard, and this will make the Union stronger? But isn't the difficulty with this that the SNP don't want to retain the Union they want Independence - so how will Labour and the SNP working together make the Union stronger? Or - have I totally misunderstood what you are saying?

On the whole I think that coalitions are a good thing, as if they work well they temper the extremes of views of both (or all) sides, and temper the left/right swing that we have tended to have when governments change. Still it hasn't stopped some pretty daft policies - NHS 'reform' and the creation of CCG's has been a massive waste of money and at least 18 months to implement it.

Shakethedisease

Better_Days wrote: »

Thanks for this, very interesting.

Could you just clarify your first point please - what do you mean by completely devolved electoral control?

Section 30 in the Edinburgh agreement made the result of the referendum valid and legal both in Holyrood and Westminster. Beforehand there was a lot of dispute over Holyrood's 'right' to hold the referendum at all. Holyrood said yes, Westminster said no. In practice, there is nothing actually to stop a further advisory referendum. However, Westminster recognising it is in dispute, legally. Northern Ireland has the legal right to hold a referendum written into the Good Friday agreement re remaining part of the UK or not. I think the SNP would be looking for the same clause devolved into Holyrood's hands.

Second point makes a lot of sense. Third point in conjunction with Salmond and Sturgeon talking about 'holding feet to the fire' is where it starts to get uncertain - are you saying that you think that although the SNP have accepted that they lost the referendum, there are more than one way to skin a cat, and the SNP are now aiming for independence in increments beyond Smith, rather than as a discrete event?

The Barnett formula causes great resentment over it's perceived 'unfairness'., as you can see even from this board ( hello Clapton ). As does the West Lothian question re voting rights on English only matters within Westminster, which is the UK parliament, not an English devolved one. EVEL is a bit of a fudge, and is likely to result in still more resentment, effectively ( if the Tories have the largest number of seats ) perhaps having one party in power ie Labour, but another through larger English MP numbers/allies in the HOC voting through various taxes, legislation and in actually deciding what constitutes an English only law.

The SNP want rid of it. Raising all taxes and revenues in Scotland, and paying Westminster a sum towards, debt, defence and foreign affairs. The argument is over if the 'sums' stack up rather than the principle. Labour and the Conservatives want it kept, but the austerity cuts down the line will affect it anyway. As will Smith Commission proposals too if they pass. Also the West Lothian question would be resolved.

However, it probably would be a stepping stone in the way to independence at some point. In my own opinion only.. the political union between Scotland and rUK is now probably broken beyond repair anyway. The polls today are predicting the SNP taking every seat in Scotland ( I think that's big pie in the sky myself ! ). The Tories have completely given up on Scotland, the Lib Dems look likely to only retain 1 or two seats if any, and Labour no longer the majority party there, perhaps also with very few seats. How much interest there will be really be from English MP's in Scottish issues after this result I can't say.

I also think it is possible that the Labour party will split with a completely separate Scottish party as a result. Possibly the Lib Dems too. Both would probably, as autonomous parties, support some from of Devo Max and concentrate efforts on Holyrood rather than Westminster for a while
It's only the economic union imo which needs to be resolved ( the referendum No result was widely based on economic risks ).

I'm not sure I quite understand what you are getting at here. If the govt (of whatever political leaning) wants to ignore the views of MP's from a particular party, surely they are at liberty to do so, providing they can continue to retain the confidence of the HofC? Aren't all the 'smaller' parties in the same position? And the people who voted for the 'smaller' parties may well feel disenfranchised and cut off from Westminster - but that's the system we currently have.

Grand coalitons, formal or on a 'nod and a wink' basis also involving the Lib Dems who have also said they won't work with the SNP.. would freeze the SNP and thus Scottish representation out. There is also the not inconsiderable case that the SNP don't accept peerages.. So have no representation whatsoever in the House of Lords, which they wish to abolish. Labour and Lib Dems say they do too.. but well..

Or are you saying that it will benefit the Union if Labour work with the SNP because the voice of the those in Scotland who voted for the SNP will be heard, and this will make the Union stronger? But isn't the difficulty with this that the SNP don't want to retain the Union they want Independence - so how will Labour and the SNP working together make the Union stronger? Or - have I totally misunderstood what you are saying?

The SNP working within Westminster, and being fully part of things without constant cries of 'we won't work with them', 'are they even legitmate MP's'... would ease things down re independence and bad feeling. It might have been better for Ed Miliband to state that 'look, we might not want to work with the SNP, but if that's how the cards fall then everyone will have to make the best of it if that's what the electorate decide'. The other three parties making constant statements about not doing deals, legitimacy, won't work with, freezing them out or 'daring the SNP to vote us down' has in the main been reflected in Scotland...as wonderful soaring opinion poll results. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

On the whole I think that coalitions are a good thing, as if they work well they temper the extremes of views of both (or all) sides, and temper the left/right swing that we have tended to have when governments change. Still it hasn't stopped some pretty daft policies - NHS 'reform' and the creation of CCG's has been a massive waste of money and at least 18 months to implement it.

Who knows, mabye despite all the angst, things will work out well for everyone in the end and we'll all get used to it. Scotland will get more powers, but remain wholly in the Union, and the SNP bogeyman ( or woman ) at Westminster will become the norm over the next few years. There was a bit of hysterics over 2010 and hung parliaments in the lead up to the election as well.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

And the winner is ........

I have to admit that Scottish anti-English insults are bigger than English anti-Scottish insults.

.string. wrote: »

You really are talking a load of b*****ks, it seems the infantile anti Tory bile surfaces yet again, a manufactured grievance perpetuated to foster division (*)

Now let's not let this unpredictable electoral situation get on our nerves, shall we? Or let it descend into insults?

.string.

Better_Days wrote: »

On the whole I think that coalitions are a good thing are thus more likely, as if they work well they temper the extremes of views of both (or all) sides, and temper the left/right swing that we have tended to have when governments change. Still it hasn't stopped some pretty daft policies - NHS 'reform' and the creation of CCG's has been a massive waste of money and at least 18 months to implement it.

I can sympathise with (hopefully) the essence of what you are saying there because I too think the recent UK Coalition did a fair job of bringing the country back from the brink. But it may be that it is the exception rather than the rule.

Your point derives, I think, from the LibDems seductive message that they can act as a damper for the excesses of Labour or Conservative. They have a point, but in the general case one can make a fair argument that the larger parties are more likely to be the more balanced since they have the larger number of voters and are thus more likely to be "middle of the road", and it is the smaller, special interest, parties that have the funny ideas. Of course, as usual, one can think of exceptions.

Accusations about the LibDem's retreat from their promise on tuition fees has made people sensitive to pre-election promises, but in a bad way I think. Though not a LobDem voter, I do think the accusations that came their way was unfair since, pragmatically, one can hardly expect the whole wish list of a Party to survive into coalition. I put it down to a lack of experience of the British Public with coalitions.

I lived in Holland for many years and became aquainted enough with Dutch political life to know that I did not want to be acquainted with it at all. If you look at the Number of political parties in Holland, you will see the complexity and combinations of the parties who would try to bind together in a coalition. These parties are elected by the Dutch form of PR which effectively means that the party hacks on top of the party list always gets in and that the system increases the number of parties.

I don't live there any more, but my son who does enjoys complaining to me about strange policies which have been forced on the Government by some odd-ball political party as their price for joining the current coalition. It is never-ending coalition government, and the source of my objections to PR.

In the UK this chaotic situation is made worse by each party feeling the need to set "Red Lines" which sounds nice and transparent but in fact breeds inflexibility and hinders the compromises needed to forum a good coalition.

So - a bit long winded I'm afraid, but I guess it means that I agree with you a little bit, or should that be disagree?

Whatever!

kabayiri

Shakey, there is a discussion about the idea of a Grand Coallition in DT.

People seem fairly positive on the idea, but you don't think it workable if I recall.

I'm curious to know why?

elantan

noodle_doodle wrote: »

The thing about the SNP is that their candidates are so vehemently opposed to other parties, nay, other people, that disagree with them, that they will fundamentally fail the job of an mp to represent all their constituents, rather than just the ones who agree with them. I've had local MPs of all hues over the years but they've all stood up for local issues. These lot would just be nodding dogs for Alex's !!!!-stirring.

Thats interesting you say that as I was at work today in a public place when a worker went on and on for over ten minutes about Nicola Sturgeon and her Krankie look etc (and that was the writeable stuff), I sat open mouthed listening to her vitriol, she then informs me she is voting labour ( the labour candidate from my area ) and continued on about how great labour are, the person sitting next to me listened quietly and said nothing, when the person finally gave up (as no one was taking her on) and left the girl quietly sitting next to me said, I have had to listen to this since I first made the mistake of saying I am voting Yes ... I am an SNP member but would never mention it as I know I would get so much abuse from her.

It was sadly normal for her to hear that level of vileness

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Thats interesting you say that as I was at work today in a public place when a worker went on and on for over ten minutes about Nicola Sturgeon and her Krankie look etc (and that was the writeable stuff), I sat open mouthed listening to her vitriol, she then informs me she is voting labour ( the labour candidate from my area ) and continued on about how great labour are, the person sitting next to me listened quietly and said nothing, when the person finally gave up (as no one was taking her on) and left the girl quietly sitting next to me said, I have had to listen to this since I first made the mistake of saying I am voting Yes ... I am an SNP member but would never mention it as I know I would get so much abuse from her.

It was sadly normal for her to hear that level of vileness

gosh that is terrible
there must be a lot of awful unpleasant people where you live

elantan

There are an awful lot of unpleasant people everywhere, here now politics is dominating a lot of peoples lives, people who before didnt know or care about politics suddenly do (or think they do) ... it is very interesting in many ways ... I dont know the person today that was being nasty so cant say that she is an unpleasant person normally, maybe it is just a political thing with her