Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

The helicopter thing is a red herring and just a bit of fun I hope.

Scotland has some remote communities and realistically to visit them in an election campaign you have to go by air.

Tony Abbott, much to his credit despite being a dreadful PM, does this every year:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/abbott-to-camp-in-arnhem-land/5741340

He holds Government for a week 600 km away from Darwin, the capital of the Northern Territory. Between Arnhem Land and Darwin there is basically nothing. Darwin has a population of something more than 100,000 and is half the population and capital of an area the size of W Europe. Of course he flies there. It would be utterly ludicrous to do anything else. Ditto La Sturgeon.

Still, not offering the SNP a place in Government is no more a snub of Scotland than Labour not offering Surreyites a place in their Government. It's good propaganda though so I can see why the SNP are pushing it.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Still, not offering the SNP a place in Government is no more a snub of Scotland than Labour not offering Surreyites a place in their Government. It's good propaganda though so I can see why the SNP are pushing it.

A Little bit different though is it not.

The Conservatives went into coalition with the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems had 57 Seats.

The polls are suggesting similar for the SNP (Although I doubt it personally)

As a Scot, I am trully engaged with politics, however I have not hear of the Surreyites Party.
Could you enlighten me as to they representing MP's?
Why shouldn't the Third Largest Party have the option to discuss a coaltion with parties who have not attained a majority.

P.S.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I have no problem with this as long as the impact to Scotland is also removed from contention.

Surely we can agree on that

I want our (English) MPs to vote on Scottish matters in the Scottish Parliament when they have any sort of impact on England, like overspending and borrowing and increasing the National Debt, like favouring Scottish businesses over English businesses, like charging English students more money than Scots have to pay, like wasting subsidy-derived money on publishing SNP propaganda (White Paper), like passing laws designed to undermine the Union, and many other things.

Surely we can agree on that, because if we can then we can all be happy, can't we.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

A Little bit different though is it not.

The Conservatives went into coalition with the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems had 57 Seats.

The polls are suggesting similar for the SNP (Although I doubt it personally)

As a Scot, I am trully engaged with politics, however I have not hear of the Surreyites Party.
Could you enlighten me as to they representing MP's?
Why shouldn't the Third Largest Party have the option to discuss a coaltion with parties who have not attained a majority.

P.S.

To be fair, the SNP started the games by saying they wouldn't go into power with the Tories.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

I want our (English) MPs to vote on Scottish matters in the Scottish Parliament when they have any sort of impact on England, like overspending and borrowing and increasing the National Debt, like favouring Scottish businesses over English businesses, like charging English students more money than Scots have to pay, like wasting subsidy-derived money on publishing SNP propaganda (White Paper), like passing laws designed to undermine the Union, and many other things.

Surely we can agree on that, because if we can then we can all be happy, can't we.

wouldn't it be interesting if you broke it down and understood what each of these has an impact on England.

Take the Student Fee's thing. I understand there was an agreement that Scotland would not charge less than England as it would attract more English students away from English Universities in favour of Scottish Universities.

You can't have it both ways, unless your preference would be to stop the free eduction of the youth.

Would you cut off your nose to spite your face?

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, the SNP started the games by saying they wouldn't go into power with the Tories.

It's not games, its understanding and addressing the politics of Scotland for the last 20-30 years.

The Conservatives have 1 seat in Scotland. They know they are not represented well there.

Why would the SNP hang themselves out to dry as the Lib Dems have done in the last election?

I guess you dismiss it as the polls (you do love a poll) are suggesting the Con's / Lib Dems will not gain enough to have another coalition, despite you saying the other day the Con's might even get a majority.

That's not even gamesmanship, it's delusional.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can't have it both ways ...

No - you or rather the S NP can't have it both ways

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

wouldn't it be interesting if you broke it down and understood what each of these has an impact on England.

Take the Student Fee's thing. I understand there was an agreement that Scotland would not charge less than England as it would attract more English students away from English Universities in favour of Scottish Universities.

You can't have it both ways, unless your preference would be to stop the free eduction of the youth.

Would you cut off your nose to spite your face?

could you say who this 'agreement' was between?
many of us have never heard of it.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's not games, its understanding and addressing the politics of Scotland for the last 20-30 years.

The Conservatives have 1 seat in Scotland. They know they are not represented well there.

Why would the SNP hang themselves out to dry as the Lib Dems have done in the last election?

I guess you dismiss it as the polls (you do love a poll) are suggesting the Con's / Lib Dems will not gain enough to have another coalition, despite you saying the other day the Con's might even get a majority.

That's not even gamesmanship, it's delusional.

Polls on a yes/no vote are rather different to those on a multi-party vote. To be fair, all but two of the polls were right of the near 200 which predicted a resounding victory to No!.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Polls on a yes/no vote are rather different to those on a multi-party vote. To be fair, all but two of the polls were right of the near 200 which predicted a resounding victory to No!.

So is your premise that the polls are wrong this time and there will be a Conservative majority