Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

MumOf2

Quite frankly, the SNP just come over as a moaning irrelevance when it comes to viewing the bigger picture of UK politics and economics. 1.4 million votes - crickey that just represents a few good sized constituencies in England. And Nicola Sturgeon accompanied them to London today - good grief, can't they move an inch without her? We've just had a weekend back visiting friends in Edinburgh and they're just horrified by the SNP hijacking of the saltire, Scottish culture and Scotland as a whole. The SNP DO NOT speak for Scotland, they just speak for SNP voters, that's all.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'd recommend a modicum of respect now and again.

Don't shoot the messenger for telling you how the headlines played in Scotland. Some of us said at the time they were not going down well, and would only bolster the SNP. Which they most certainly helped to do.

http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/why-scotland-voted-snp/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/anti-scotland-cameron-last-resort-snp

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04/22/the-tories-anti-scottish-rhetoric-is-dangerous-it-could-also

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/sunday-herald-view/the-tories-and-their-right-wing-press-play-a-dangerous-game-stirring-up-h.125592308

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/05/11/commentary/world-commentary/what-propelled-cameron-to-victory/#.VVDeXJPQOPd

All of the above absolutely hilarious to you I suppose. Cameron and the Tories did indeed play a dangerous game the last few weeks.

I have to give you credit for what you're good at, Shakey, you really work hard at being offended.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

No they didn't.

It's a ridiculous statement to make.

Other parties were claiming the 'end of the NHS as we know it' should the Tories win.

That was another extreme and unfounded claim.

David Cameron was entitled to express his view of any potential alliance between any of the parties.

It was up to Ed Milliband to counter that view. Ed didn't make a clear enough case to the voters.

You don't get to write the rules of politics Shakey any more than I do.

The idea of a political leader being in the pocket of another leader dates back to David Steele / David Owen. This sort of character assignation has been going on for decades.

Look, I'm sorry if you disagree with thousands of Scottish voters and their views. And just about every political commentator who observed the Conservative campaign over the last six weeks that didn't write for the Telegraph or the Daily Mail.
But ( and am not just talking of the poster ).. but the overall tone come across as 'anti-Scottish'. Not anti-SNP. Ajockalypse now etc. And how exactly am I making up rules posting about things from a different perspective than you have ? The pickpocketing posters, weren't appreciated by many, and certainly weren't seen as jokes.

That's how it was. And I'd also appreciate it if you didn't try to distill things down as if they are my own personal opinion, and only my own. I've shown you plenty of links that suggest otherwise. One even from the Japan times.

David Cameron is indeed welcome to express his views, as was Ed Miliband. But that doesn't mean his views and how he expresses them came across well. I can't tell you that they did when they plainly didn't.
He played the anti-Scots card, and he played it well. Both by bolstering Tory votes in England, and solidfying SNP votes in Scotland. The election is over now.. What happens now is anyone's guess. But safe to say the days of 'fighting for the union with every fibre of my being' are probably long gone.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I have to give you credit for what you're good at, Shakey, you really work hard at being offended.

Oh.. it wasn't just me. Those were random twitter links from others that weren't impressed either. 50% of the Scottish electorate most likely.

They've just appointed David Mundell as Scottish Secretary.

The move comes just days after senior Tories demanded the devolution of all tax and spending to stop Scots treating England "as a piggy bank".

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/david-camerons-government-signals-it-is-open-to-giving-scotland-more-p.125748767

Charming.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
He played the anti-Scots card, and he played it well.
...

Once again. You are making an interpretation which just isn't there.

He played the anti-Labour card, if anything! He let people question the governability which Ed Miliband would have, suggesting he would be undermined.

I wish you would realise not everything is about Scotland. It's not. The election was UK wide - it's just you can't see it. Frankly, it's SAD.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

I have to give you credit for what you're good at, Shakey, you really work hard at being offended.

Fauxrage...is the term you are searching for

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fauxrage

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

Fauxrage...is the term you are searching for

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fauxrage

Thanks - I'd not heard that term before. Good spot, it fits so much of certain behaviorism..


I also didn't know that jock was an insult.

My Grandparents used to have two Scottish Terriers, one was called Jeannie, the other Jock.

I never realised they were anti Scottish.

Jason74

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is laughable.

Are you seriously saying that if the SNP was not polling so well, that Labour would have a majority

I disagree with Hamish more often than not, but the idea that fear of the SNP influence had an impact on English votes is anything but laughable. The Tories ran a very efficient negative campaign in the latter stages, and by polling day, the issue of a Labour minority Government being held to ransom by the SNP was a major discussion topic South of the border.


In the event, there were 14 seats in which the Tories beat Labour by less than 1,100 votes (IE, where a 550 vote swing would have changed the outcome). I believe that without the SNP factor, most, if not all, of those seats would have gone the other way. That in itself would have removed the Tory majority, and it's really hard to tell what the SNP impact is beyond those seats. Even if there was no further impact in England, had Labour retained 30 or so Scottish seats, you'd have been looking at Labour on about 276 and Tories 317. Still a minority Tory Govt and solid Tory lead, but an altogether different parliamentary dynamic to the one we have now.


So no, I don't for a minute believe that Labour would have had a majority without the SNP factor, but I do believe that without it, the Tories wouldn't have had one. And that in many ways is the irony of the SNP surge. Far from "locking David Cameron out of Downing Street", the SNP have in fact to a large extent given him the keys.

elantan

I'm laughing my backside off at all this fear, Fear of the SNP, it's utterly hilarious ... I may run out of popcorn

Thursday shows that the people of Scotland have voted for change, we've had enough now ...

gonna be interesting times ahead

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I'm laughing my backside off at all this fear, Fear of the SNP, it's utterly hilarious ... I may run out of popcorn

Thursday shows that the people of Scotland have voted for change, we've had enough now ...

gonna be interesting times ahead

what sort of change do the people of Scotland want?

Fairness : so all the peoples of the UK enjoy the same level of block grant
Fairness so that the only the English can vote of matters that are devolved?
Democratic choice whether to stay in the EU?