Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Yes - the first sentence of the last para quoted reveals a certain mind set.


As to his main point about people's vote not counting, he has this confusion about the difference between being in the Government and being an MP.

For example, he stated "it seems we have to ensure that the SNP plays no role in the government of the UK."

That is simply not true. As far as I am aware, no-one has said that the SNP should not take part in the government of them UK by voting in Parliament as do other MPs of other persuasions. The issue is about whether they are a legitimate partner in Goverment (with a capital G). Further, I repeat, it is a matter of perceived legitimacy.

Not impressed with his analysis at all.

.string.

@Shakey - I just posted on the other thread a reply to the bit about your complaint.

I'm busy now - will look at the rest tomorrow.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

he doesn't seem to understand that there is an election taking place

what happens after the results are known is yet to be decided.

although disgraceful and morally wrong, the Scottish MPs can legally vote on all matters that come before parliament.

I'm sure they will exercise that right to gain as much advantage for the SNP and for the cause :independence for Scotland.

why is that so difficult for people to understand : did the good professor have a article to write?

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

nd 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.

Suggest you ask Daniel Sanderson who wrote the article in the Herald. That would be The Herald you previously recommended to me as being one of the fairer and more balanced of the Scottish MSM.

As for your last comment, to borrow one of your oft used phrases, if that's what makes you feel good, you keep on thinking that. Lol.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

he doesn't seem to understand that there is an election taking place

what happens after the results are known is yet to be decided.

although disgraceful and morally wrong, the Scottish MPs can legally vote on all matters that come before parliament.

I'm sure they will exercise that right to gain as much advantage for the SNP and for the cause :independence for Scotland.

why is that so difficult for people to understand : did the good professor have a article to write?

It was Danny Blanchflower that tweeted it. He's very annoyed that his scottish son in law's vote seems to be worth less than his mothers and his sisters.. ( or something along those lines ). I don't know the professor and have never heard of him.

However, the article itself articulates things well from this perspective.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Suggest you ask Daniel Sanderson who wrote the article in the Herald. That would be The Herald you previously recommended to me as being one of the fairer and more balanced of the Scottish MSM.

As for your last comment, to borrow one of your oft used phrases, if that's what makes you feel good, you keep on thinking that. Lol.

No-one has a database of specific Conservative voters. But fairdo's if it's in the Herald. I guess it must be true then...:cool:. When I said fairer and more balanced.. I meant relatively ( as in compared to the Daily Labour ). I'm a bit torn on Jim Murphy to be honest. It would be good to see him lose his seat to Kirsten Oswald.. a real Portillo moment. But on the other hand, he's been such an unmitigated disaster for Scottish Labour. Relying on Tory tactical voting to keep him in and remain as Scottish Labour leader would be a wonderful start to the SNP's 2016 campaign. Especially as he'll be campaigning to be the First Minister... which sitting in Westminster for five years.

I have no opinion on how you will float vote or not, apart from to respect whatever you decide on it's own merits. What a shame you can't extend the same respect to others.

ruggedtoast

Sturgeon is sending a delegation to London to talk to Ed. Labour facing tartan whitewash. Tartan wash.

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Sturgeon is sending a delegation to London to talk to Ed. Labour facing tartan whitewash. Tartan wash.

Presumably a continuation of her campaign to get more Tory votes in order for her to ratchet up anti-Tory whinging (aka anti-English whinging), while at the same time damaging the Labour Party.

Or am I giving her too much credit for nouse? Perhaps she thinks she can get Ed's endorsement. No - she can't be that daft. Can she?

ruggedtoast

Sturgeon could be the Kingmaker in this election. She knows it and is taking it in her strudel.

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Sturgeon could be the Kingmaker in this election. She knows it and is taking it in her strudel.

Maybe she's planning to turn the Edstone into a Millstone.