Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

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

that's very fair minded of you

so it wasn't simply because she didn't support the SNP then ?

elantan

Certainly not, many people dont support the SNP, it was because of her vitriol nastiness and total lack of respect for people... It isn't compulsory to support the SNP, I am surprised you even think it could be

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Certainly not, many people dont support the SNP, it was because of her vitriol nastiness and total lack of respect for people... It isn't compulsory to support the SNP, I am surprised you even think it could be

There are a lot of people with vitriol nastiness, but why mention this non SNP supporting person here?
Is there a point to your story?

elantan

ermmm maybe the fact the origonal was quoting noodle doodle, It isnt one sided, yes I gave the example of a person I met at work but I have met Mp's from other parties that are the same and met SNP candidates that actually surprised me in that they agreed with and listened to others ... I spose I shouldve added that bit in as well but I was in a rush trying to get dinner made and that was something that had happened today,

is that an acceptable answer for you Clapton?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

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?

Lack of democratic Scottish representation at Westminster, instituted solely in order to stop democratic Scottish representation at Westminster. Union over.

If the Scottish National Party can't contribute to UK govt without causing constitutional crisis is it any wonder they seek independence?

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Lack of democratic Scottish representation at Westminster, instituted solely in order to stop democratic Scottish representation at Westminster. Union over.

So this would play into SNP plans then?

If it's a route to the independence you seek, is it still an unwelcome outcome?

If we look at an alternate scenario, one where the SNP group in Westminster play a pivotal role, then how can they extracate themselves from this arrangement should another referendum vote be Yes?

It's a conundrum. SNP success in a Westminster parliament vindicates the workability of the Union does it not?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

So this would play into SNP plans then?

If it's a route to the independence you seek, is it still an unwelcome outcome?

If we look at an alternate scenario, one where the SNP group in Westminster play a pivotal role, then how can they extracate themselves from this arrangement should another referendum vote be Yes?

It's a conundrum. SNP success in a Westminster parliament vindicates the workability of the Union does it not?

It's simple democracy. A Grand Coalition at the present time, the way the votes look like going... would plainly only be happening to deny Scottish MP's influence in Westminster matters. Nothing else. It looks petulant, spiteful, desperate and petty.

It would also remove any effective opposition ( there would be an SNP MP doing PMQ's for the the opposition ! ). And by far and away the most important consideration.. all those millions of voters who had 'voted Labour to keep the Tories out'.. or vice versa. Are not exactly going to be thrilled are they ?

Just because the Telegraph and other news outlets are apoplectic over the SNP being returned as the third largest party in a UK election, 8 months after Scotland voted to remain as part of the UK. Doesn't mean everyone is. Take away the independence issue and there are quite a lot of people like the idea.

The SNP will push for further powers for Scotland. Independence is for another day. Time is on their side demographically.

Ipsos Mori Scotland Poll
Aged 18-24

SNP 71%
LAB 17%
CON 9%
GRN 2%
LIB 1%

All age groups under age 55 now have SNP well in the lead in their voting preferences, women too for the first time ( Salmond always had a 'women problem' ). At the moment the SNP will just have to make the best of what the electorate deals them.. as they did on Sept 18th. A 'grand coalition' would just cement what the SNP has been saying about Westminster not caring much about Scotland or those who live there.

I may want independence. But 55% of the electorate didn't. Westminster and those who truly believe in the union should be very careful not to lose that 55%. I don't think they are making a very good job of it.

elantan

Salmond never had a problem with me always been my hero

Better_Days

Shakethedisease, thanks for your detailed response to my post and for explaining about Section 30 of the Edinburgh agreement (something that had entirely passed me by )

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.

Yes, and the close proximity of the referendum and the GE has raised the heat of the debates, focused opinions, and a lot has been said that will not be forgotten for a long while. I'm not sure the position regarding political union is irretrievable, but it is badly damaged. I think a lot will depend on how things pan out for the SNP after the GE if they do end up in some sort of coalition, formal or informal. What has happened to the LibDems will be a salutary lesson, I suspect. Many fine promises are made prior to a GE, but the electorate can be unforgiving, despite the fact that a coalition will inevitably involve compromises. The SNP have raised expectations - delivering on those expectations will be a considerable challenge.

The economics of FFA are much more difficult to unpick though, currency, Europe, share of assets and liabilities......

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.

But if Milliband had said we'll work with the SNP if that is how the cards fall, surely that too would have been just as beneficial for the SNP? From an English perspective SNP 'bullishness' about their likely gain of seats, and their resultant influence in Westminster, will play well in Scotland, but here I think it has rankled rather. This maybe part of the reason for the 'ruling out' of coalition with the SNP, ie political expediency of how it will play out in England rather than genuine concern about legitimacy. And of course the right wing press has had a field day with it all which has whipped up all the unpleasantness against the SNP to a higher level.

Politicians wiggle and squirm and at the end of the day it will be political expediency, not what was said prior to the GE that will prevail.

.string. wrote:

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.

Fair point, and also lot depends on who the parties in the coalition are - a left and a far left, or a right and a far right would not bring the balance I described. But I also think that in the past there was a significant swing between left and right when governments changed - and time and money was wasted processing that swing.

Very interesting to hear about the Dutch system and the anonomilies it creates. Out of interest I looked up coalition governments and there are lots of them - more than I expected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_coalition_governments There are some unstable political systems there - Italy for example, who have frequent changes of government, but coaltions do not seem to be wholly unsucessful.

.string. wrote:

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.

Very much so and I think this 'red lines' thing is one of the products of negative campaigning. And of course the 'red lines' that we would really like to know about - taxation, spending and cuts - well there is simply not enough information from any of the parties.

And on top of that if there is a coalition (as seems likely) the parties will just say - ah well its a coalition, you can't expect us to keep to what we promised. Frankly I can't see how any voter can make an informed decision, especially given the unfunded promises which seem to be showering down on the electorate like confetti from Lab/Con and Lib Dems.

BobQ

The polls point to a potential wipe out for Labour in Scotland. The Tory policy of promoting fear in English electors over the influence of the SNP, while stoking anti-Scottish thinking may well work in terms of making them the largest UK party. But at what price? The break up of the UK.

If the policy works they might just scrape a minority Tory Government or even a continuing ConDem coalition (with both having lost support). More likely they will lead to a minority administration bolstered by the SNP and others. Both solutions will we weak and by-elections could result in it getting weaker through the Parliament.

But at what price? The break up of the UK, something that less than a year ago he was desperate to salvage, an argument he will never be able to advance again with any credibility.

Whatever the short term benefits for the Tories of this strategy, Cameron is destroying the Union. I just hope that Scottish people who believe in the Union, have the sense to see how they are being manipulated by Tory desperation.