Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You are the single spokesman for Yorkshire then.
How authoritarian of you.

Time to take the blinkers off and realise how to conduct a debate. Remember it's not "de bait"

P.S.,there is no clause in the SAAS recommendations against the English, only non residents of Scotland.

Don't discriminate against the Welsh and Northern Irish will you.

The SNP government allows all EU student to pay nothing (PS they were not resident ).

It is true that SNP also discriminates again the Welsh, NI and the all the English: why you feel proud of that is a mystery.

Shakethedisease

Better_Days wrote: »

Could you explain how the FTPA makes a difference to the smaller parties in Westminster over what we had before? Although part of the difference now is that if the polls pan out the makeup of the 'smaller' parties will change and the vote seems to be a pretty even split between Lab/Cons for the 'bigger' parties. How's UKIP polling atm? Anyone notice?

This is from Labourlist today.. But I hasten to add that the SNP have indicated strongly, that they won't be 'voting down every piece of legislation'. Is just an example. Also things very much depend on the numbers of Lib Dems, DUP which way they'll jump and ultimately how many seats everyone gets.

The confusion in the media seems to be that they're all still stuck on the fact that the SNP ( and other parties ) will 'have' to support Labour in all matters in order not to precipitate an election, risking the Tories taking power. Things don't work quite like they used to anymore. The Lib Dems in 2010 wanted to make very sure the Tories wouldn't be bailing out on them easily, hence the FTPA. I think they might have perhaps 'over-secured' things a bit for smaller parties in Westminster.

No he's not. I wish people would actually read the bloody legislation that covers this.
1) The queen will appoint whoever she believes has the votes to "command the House of Commons"
2) That's it. The SNP can twiddle their thumbs for five years and vote against every single piece of legislation - including budgets and queen's speeches. That WILL NOT lead to the government being fired.

There is only one thing that will fire a government: a specific bill passed by simple majority through the house of commons, with the text "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government". That's it. Budgets, Queens' speeches, etc are NOT confidence motions.
Every time the tories try to pass a no-confidence motion, the SNP can vote that down. Unless Labour joins the tories, Labour will be trapped. A zombie government which can't do a single damn thing. Unless you can get the Tories to have mercy on you by repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and if you think they will - you've never encountered the Nasty Party.
Congratulations, the Miliband administration will be the UK's first zombie government...

This article also explains it well..

Speaking Legally…
Elections can now come about as a result of one of the following three circumstances:

• Times’s up – at the time appointed in the Act, as is happening now.
• The Commons votes for a dissolution with 2/3rds of the 650 members voting for an early dissolution (or if the motion passes without a division).
• A motion that “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” Is passed, and within 14 days a motion “That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” is not

Prof Talbot insists that “Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queens Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing”. This is true – and that is the problem.


Speaking Politically…

But Prof Talbot, and he is very far from being alone in this, rather assumes that a minority Labour government would not really be a minority government. He implies that the SNP would have no choice but to support a Labour minority government even if ‘Labour sticks to its “no deals with the SNP”...


The problem with this is

• it fails to recognise what is happening in Scotland. If the polls are correct, we are about to witness a transformation in the party political map of one of the Three Kingdoms without parallel in British politics since Sinn Fein supplanted the Irish Parliamentary Party in the 1918 general election. Even Senior Labour figures in Scotland admit that what is happening is a “seismic event”. It is in fact, a small quiet revolution;
• Labour will suffer a devastating defeat in Scotland. That fact should lead to reflection, not a sense of entitlement;
• If the SNP take 75% or more of the seats in Scotland, they can no longer be considered ‘just another party’, they will have become the political manifestation of the Scottish

Is it seriously to be believed that Labour can snub the SNP and still expect them to give unconditional support to Labour?

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=12794

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

"gun to his own head" :rotfl:

Classic. You are prone to hyperbole.

The meme's are already out there. The 'gun to the head' analogy isn't mine. It's all over social media, and a rather more polite version of it, all over the front pages in Scotland today. What a gift to the SNP in the last week of the campaign. Labour themselves threatening to put the Tories in.... ( small print, though we meant vote by vote is okay of course ).

If only the Scottish economy was as big as the SNP ego - the whole of the UK would be an economic tour de force.

The Scottish voters are less than 10%. Mr Milliband has to campaign to the 100%.

He's missed out 10% then.. and am not really sure how thrilled Labour voters in England/Wales were about hearing the first part of his message ( those who have missed the small print ). Miliband has just bought himself 5 loooooooong years of Tory newspaper hysterics over his comments last night. They've gone from telling him he can't have a coalition... to then confidence and supply... and now he's ruled that out too.. they're now saying that 'vote by vote' = 'a deal with the SNP' too. They'll continue on in that vein for the next few years if he's in Downing St.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

1) The queen will appoint whoever she believes has the votes to "command the House of Commons"

2) That's it. The SNP can twiddle their thumbs for five years and vote against every single piece of legislation - including budgets and queen's speeches. That WILL NOT lead to the government being fired.

And chances are, that will be the largest party, which will be the Tories.

Which means Labour can sit there for 5 years twiddling their thumbs and voting down every piece of legislation until, more than likely, some of their MP's actually start voting through the stuff they agree with for the good of the country.

Or they can team up with the SNP and risk a vote of no confidence to topple the Tories - but that's political suicide for Labour as England would see it as a coup.....

Or risk a second election that they don't have the money to fight and would lose in a big way, as the country will have no patience with gridlock at Westminster and likely blame the opposition.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This article also explains it well..

Speaking Legally…
Elections can now come about as a result of one of the following three circumstances:

Times’s up – at the time appointed in the Act, as is happening now.

The Commons votes for a dissolution with 2/3rds of the 650 members voting for an early dissolution (or if the motion passes without a division).

A motion that “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” Is passed, and within 14 days a motion “That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” is not
Prof Talbot insists that “Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queens Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing”.

This is true – and that is the problem.

In which case we are going to see a Grand Coalition in all but name....

Tories will be largest party and form government.

Labour won't risk a 'coup' via no confidence votes - the country would never forgive them.

And they certainly won't risk going back to the polls as they'd lose.

This is going to be an interesting week....

.string.

Now let me see if I've got this right.

The SNP Master Plan in the event of the Conservatives coming first in the General Election is to "lock them out of number 10, Downing Street".

The plan is then to vote in a minority Labour Goverment and then subsequently support them in power, voting on a case by case basis but with them on any no confidence measure.

Their plan is to vote for any Bill that they like, but propose amendments (which would favour only SNP policy) blackmailing the Labour Party by threatening to vote against the Labour Bill if they, the SNP, do not get their way.

This is assumed by the SNP to be a win-win strategy because if they are ignored by the other parties and their amendments are rejected, they will claim that the will of the Scotland people in electing the SNP MPs has been undemocratically ignored by preventing SNP MPs from exercising their legitimate influence in Westminster. They would then argue that all true patriotic Scots should immediately vote in a new (illegal) Referendum for freedom from the dastardly English and Welsh, and Northern Irish but mostly from the wicked Tories and the neo-Tory Labour Party and the Neo-Tory LibDems.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well let's look at that scenario from a different perspective.

Should the SNP MPs vote prevent the Tories forming a new Government, in spite of having more MPs than Labour, the SNP will have frustrated the decision of the rest of (primarily) English people and prevented Tory MPs from exercising their legitimate influence in Parliament. In other words it would be the mirror image of what the SNP would claim had happened to them if they are ostracised; and people would say so.

The furore which would follow such coarse politics especially considering that Sturgeon has trumpeted well in advance that it is her interntion to act in this way would rip the credibility away from any subsequent SNP moaning and groaning.

I think the end result of this farce would be a new, early, General Election, with the SNP on the defensive as proven cynical wreckers of the process of UK Government and the Labour Party vindicated in their advice to Scottish Voters not to vote for the SNP.

What effect that would have on voters in Scotland I have no idea, but I suspect that the Tories would gain in England at least, making an outright Tory win at the next election almost inevitable (unless Scotland dumped the SNP).

Better_Days

Many thanks Shakethedisease for the info discussing the implications of the FTPA. :beer:

I had appreciated that the Lib Dems wanted it so that they wouldn't be thrown overboard in rough seas, but wasn't aware of the unintended consequences which Democratic Audit UK consider. It does leave me wondering even more how it will all pan out, especially given the cornucopia of red lines, and bitterness in this campaign. Oh dearie dearie me.

purch

kabayiri wrote: »

Ed has a battle bus and she has an Attack Chopper!!

I think you will find both Ed and Dave have more than one "Battle Bus". They tend to fly between engagements and then get in one of the Buses for the last part of the trip.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

I have no way of knowing of course but a massive problem the SNP will have is that almost all of the likely new MPs have absolutely no experience of how the HoC works. There are 350 rules governing the day-to-day running of the House alone. Simply asking a question at the time it should be asked is a minefield.

I suspect that even with the SNP as the third party there will be chaos.

Surely any new MP has very little or no idea how the HoC works. It's like any new job, you learn as you go or you ask about protocol etc.

You think the SNP MP's will be any different to other parties MP's? You can hardly call it the most respectful 'grown up' chamber if you've ever watched pmq's.

You're really clutching at straws with that statement......

.string.

Yes, Shakey's post and the following one by Hamish (both posts interesting, so thank you) lead to an unexpected result where contrary to what we all thought, Arithmetic does not triumph in the end, at least not as far as the nominal Government choice is concerned.

Could be Oops! Time.

I must say that I think that maybe some review should be done on the FTPA. I put it like that because I need more input on how things work out this time, but it does seem that proper governance could suffer.

Would we have ever got rid of Gordon Brown?

wageslave

I watched the leaders thingy last night in horror, never was I so cognisant of the differences between our two nations. From the "I employ 57 workers and demand Ed Balls be sacked for daring to call a joke a joke" woman ( I'll send you my CV dolly, we will get on like a house on fire) to the Bloke who was building a business on seasonal" workers. Zero hour contracts and nary a blush on his cheeks. My very very favourite though was the gentleman who can afford a beer at the end of the week and who pointed out the Global Financial Crisis was all down to Gordon Brown selling gold. In my entire life, I have never come across a bunch of people so totally obsessed with self interest. These fine citizens of our fair land seem to think social conscience is a runner in the 3.15 at Haydock. Honestly, truthfully, I was bliddy disgusted