Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Someone better tell Eddi Reader Scottish singer and songwriter (Fair Ground attraction) that it's an election not an Indy rerun , as she twittered that Jim Murphy went into a Yes city (Glasgow) to cause trouble.

And as you've previously sneered at anyone considering a tactical vote in the election, I presume you feel even more disdain for Kirsten Oswald SNP candidate for East Renfrewhsire. She has been contacting Conservative voters, telling them she respects their Tory values, but as SNP look like the only party to stop Labour winning this seat, can they lend their vote to SNP.?

I'm not responsible for Eddi Reader. And Jim shares a stall with the local Tory candidate. And how do you know she is 'contacting Conservative voters' ? Nowhere in the country is there a database of everyone's voting preferences in order for anyone to 'contact' specific 'Conservative voters' or indeed any kind of voters. Apart from a parties own memberlist of course.

I think you've mabye outed yourself.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

This is true. Plus, I recollect the state of California getting into financial troubles -- a bit like the SNP would get Scotland into if given the chance.

It just feels a bit unresolved over here; we have created some regional assemblies but haven't worked out the balance between regional representation and central government.

Yes it does need some thought and some consensus across the UK.

The problem is that the UK Vow a la Scotland requires the UK to settle the Scottish Issue quickly and the whole matter has become a political football with all parties having a favourite which has not been properly developed.
.
Nevertheless I am all in favour of assembling some sort of "Tiger Team" that would work up a number of options and a primary options, with due consultations with Regional Authorities, for a decision on how to process further. Many would say that would take years as would many here I suspect. But I don't accept that.

I'm used to the way things are done on the relatively complex world of Satellite Projects. They take time as well but they are done in planned stages, in increments, with one milestone reached after another. One expects to do each milestone thoroughly but be prepared to fine tune later on. Relying on perfection in one go is normally a mistake even if it is an aspiration. But things get started very quickly.

In that respect I would favour departure from one aspect of the Vow and make it an arrangement which can be fine tuned later on, not to delay implementation of the first stage but press ahead in parallel with constitutional discussions.

It's urgent, possibly more important than other political issues at the moment. So with the Tiger Team reporting at the end of July (milestone 1) and results by the end of October (milestone 2) which will define the way ahead.

These politicians need to roll up their sleeves!

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I've made a bit of a hash of editing your post to reply but I'd like to see a sort of double PR: you vote for a constituency MP and separately you vote for a party. Seats are split 50:50 between constituency and party list MPs....

AMS.

Generali wrote: »

....Maybe then add a bonus (as in Greece) for the party that gets the most votes to add a bit of stability into the system.....

Greece has stability? Who knew?:)

Honestly though, the Greek PR system would be the worst choice. I'd rather have FPTP.

Generali wrote: »

...FPTP is great if you basically have 2 parties: you turn an effective majority into a stable Government and indeed we've seen it work very well through the C20th.....

We only really had a 2 party system from 1945 until about the 1980s. For most of the 20th century we didn't.

Generali wrote: »

..These days, the vote is fragmenting and it simply isn't reasonable to say to 40% of the population your vote doesn't get you a Government and doesn't even get you into opposition. ....

We don't really want a repeat of the absurdity of 2005 where a party can win a mere 35% share of the popular vote, and yet obtain a significant majority in seats that allows it to do whatever it wants.

Generali wrote: »

...Short term ending FPTP is bad for the Tories as the left wing vote is far more fragmented than the right. Long term however, what's good for democracy is good for democratic parties.

Short-term PR would be good for the Tories because it would reduce if not eliminate the advantages that differential turnout and constituency size confer upon Labour. Long-term it would depend on whether or not UKIP could actually get 15% or so of the popular vote.

After all, if the election on Thursday was being held under any kind of PR, wouldn't all the smart money be on a Con-UKIP coalition being the result?

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm sure it wasn't the same person. Clarkin has grey hair but the imperial master was a young guy with red hair. Maybe I'm wrong....

And yes, it was very funny. The politicians looked totally bewildered.

No u will be right, it was a young lad with the imperial masters

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The same rights as every other MP there.

It's the Tories that are shouting about legitimacy. No-one else. They're saying Labour having to rely on SNP votes wouldn't be legitimate. But haven't said the same about themselves having to rely on Lib Dem votes for the last few years.

If SNP MP's don't have the same 'legitimacy' in their votes to support whatever party they wish. But the Lib Dems/DUP/SDLP do. Then what do you think they are saying ?

Oh and I'd kindly ask you to give me at least a little time to reply to your queries, before going about crowing on other threads about how I didn't answer. Thanks.

Well that is no answer, I still have no idea what you/the SNP are moaning about; no-one has denied you the right to vote, but some parties have said they will not form a coalition with the SNP as indeed has the SNP said about the Tories.

The SNP have no right at all to form an alliance with a Party that rejects their policies.

As I mentioned in a previous post - maybe you missed it, it is the perceived legitimacy that influences which parties ally with each other; in the present case it is the British Public that are the judge of that. If something is perceived by the British Public not to be legitimate then they react at the ballot box, as no doubt you would claim to recognise in the Scottish context and a coalition with the wicked Tories.

The problem with relying on SNP votes is that the SNP has a disloyal agenda as far as the UK is concerned, or at least that is the perception of those parties - not just the Tory Monsters. Actually it is obvious. The LibDems are not disloyal to the UK. Having a wrecker of the Union as a partner would be perceived as an illegimate alliance.

Your last sentence had me puzzled, although I have noticed you avoiding giving answer to the difficult financial remarks of Hamish for example,I don't think I have complained about that recently. If I have I congratulate myself.

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm sure it wasn't the same person. Clarkin has grey hair but the imperial master was a young guy with red hair. Maybe I'm wrong....

And yes, it was very funny. The politicians looked totally bewildered.

No u will be right, it was a young lad with the imperial masters

nonnie44

skintmacflint wrote: »

Why what has she done or not done for your area. Or why do you think Patricia Gibson is a better choice. Just curious as you seem to have a strong opinion.

I believe that a change away from labour is needed in my constituency, personally Katy Clark did not deliver on a promise that she made to my mum and on the other hand Patricia Gibson's husband Kenneth Gibson who is my local MSP has a great reputation, has worked hard for this area and has helped my brother out when they didn't know where to turn trying to get a diagnosis for their son. At that time they spoke to Patricia and have the strong opinion that she is of a very similar ilk to her husband so I think that as she is very well versed in politics she would definitely be up for the job and a refreshing change for us.

As Shake has mentioned and as some SNP people have also stated to me, Ms Clark is against trident and austerity and does seem to be perhaps in the wrong party on some policies, and I don't doubt for a moment that she has done some good in the area but unfortunately hasn't made a good impression on myself/family/friends and I truly think Patricia Gibson is a better candidate.

Purely my opinion rightly or wrongly so!

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Your last sentence had me puzzled, although I have noticed you avoiding giving answer to the difficult financial remarks of Hamish for example,I don't think I have complained about that recently. If I have I congratulate myself

Then you've had a bit of a memory blank ( which isn't unusual ).

Apart from the obvious "Natland rules the World" I really don't know what the SNP/Shakey expect to get from legitimacy, or even what they think the word means, so I asked her.
. . . . . . . .

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68328841&postcount=121

9.36am this morning you were indeed on another thread crowing that I hadn't answered a question you asked...at 9.12am. Unless you think I should answer your questions within a specific timeframe ?

.string.
Today, 9:12 AM @Shakey - legitimacy

What precisely do you/the SNP understand by the word legitimacy when it comes to entitlement in the House of Commons?

I'll await your apology with baited breath.

Well that is no answer, I still have no idea what you/the SNP are moaning about; no-one has denied you the right to vote, but some parties have said they will not form a coalition with the SNP as indeed has the SNP said about the Tories.

The SNP have no right at all to form an alliance with a Party that rejects their policies.

As I mentioned in a previous post - maybe you missed it, it is the perceived legitimacy that influences which parties ally with each other; in the present case it is the British Public that are the judge of that. If something is perceived by the British Public not to be legitimate then they react at the ballot box, as no doubt you would claim to recognise in the Scottish context and a coalition with the wicked Tories.

The problem with relying on SNP votes is that the SNP has a disloyal agenda as far as the UK is concerned, or at least that is the perception of those parties - not just the Tory Monsters. Actually it is obvious. The LibDems are not disloyal to the UK. Having a wrecker of the Union as a partner would be perceived as an illegimate alliance.

I did at least try to answer you. You made no attempt to answer me.

If SNP MP's don't have the same 'legitimacy' in their votes to support whatever party they wish. But the Lib Dems/DUP/SDLP do. Then what do you think they are saying ?

The below perhaps states the current position as I see it a little better than I can if you read the full article.

Simon Wren-Lewis :- economics professor at Oxford University, and a fellow of Merton College

The Independent believes that because the SNP want independence, they must have no influence on the government of the UK. What terrible things would any SNP influence lead to? How exactly could 50 odd SNP MPs force the 600 remainder to do unspeakable things to this country? The Independent does not say, but it does say that there would be justified fury in England at the prospect. Why justified fury? Again no hint. It is just asserted that any partnership between Labour and the SNP will harm Britain’s fragile democracy....

Now it seems to me blindingly obvious that one way to harm a democracy is to tell a group of people that their votes can only count as long as they do not vote for a particular party. It does not matter how many people in Scotland vote for the SNP, it seems we have to ensure that the SNP plays no role in the government of the UK. Which means your vote cannot count.

The logic of this argument is that the SNP, because it advocates independence, should not be allowed to put up MPs for election. That would be ridiculous and profoundly undemocratic. So instead we will allow the Scottish people to vote for the SNP, but then ensure their elected MPs can have no influence. That seems even more undemocratic !

....So how exactly does electing a government whose main party has no interest in Scotland, and which therefore is happy to stoke up English resentment against Scotland, supposed to be better for the continuing existence of the United Kingdom? How is denying certain Scottish MPs any role in UK government suppose to encourage Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-independent-union-and-utter-nonsense.html?spref=tw

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Then you've had a bit of a memory blank ( which isn't unusual ).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68328841&postcount=121

9.36am this morning you were indeed on another thread crowing that I hadn't answered a question you asked...at 9.12am. Unless you think I should answer your questions within a specific timeframe ?

I'll await your apology with baited breath.

I did at least try to answer you. You made no attempt to answer me.

The below perhaps states the current position as I see it a little better than I can if you read the full article.

Simon Wren-Lewis :- economics professor at Oxford University, and a fellow of Merton Collegehttp://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-independent-union-and-utter-nonsense.html?spref=tw

for an Oxford economic professor, he is a remarkably naive and stupid person

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

for an Oxford economic professor, he is a remarkably naive and stupid person

He sounds about right to me. And it is after all what string keeps bumping his gums about. 'Loyalty to the UK' and how the SNP 'aren't loyal enough' to be allowed any influence at Westminster. Because apparently Scots are allowed to vote for the SNP.. but all three main parties don't want them to have any influence.

This is the logic behind string's thinking ( and I dare say lots of others ). Some feel however, that it's deeply undemocratic to advocate such 'logic', and then attempt to put it into practice.

There seems to be a terrible displacement somewhere in confining the argument to 'the SNP' as a political party...without actually ever taking into account those that vote for them. The two go together, and there's no getting away from that point.

...The logic of this argument is that the SNP, because it advocates independence, should not be allowed to put up MPs for election. That would be ridiculous and profoundly undemocratic. So instead we will allow the Scottish people to vote for the SNP, but then ensure their elected MPs can have no influence. That seems even more undemocratic !