Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And once again, you're trying to tell me that various political commentators and the people I live, work, socialise and interact with are wrong.

You daftie. You have absolutely no idea and not the slightest foggiest clue how Scottish people interpreted the ( many ) things like 'aJockalypse' and Alex Salmond ( the former First Minister ) being portrayed as a pickpocket in order to 'get to Ed Miliband'. Because you aren't here and don't cast your vote, nor have the same choices as people here. You should mabye respect that occasionally. Other people have different views. And something you might find hilarious, or in fact 'just a bit of fun' is often not to others who are on the receiving end.

This thread ( about to run it's course ) is about Scotland. You may have missed it somewhere in the mad rush to tell everyone that you personally, .. know better than the 5 million who actually live there, know better in fact than anyone who actually lives there, or the 50% that voted SNP a few days ago.. but it's true !
That's why posts about Scotland are contained within it it. It's a Scottish thread ! Or perhaps you feel I and others who are interested in Scottish politics have interpreted this wrong somehow also ?

Those that are interested in Scottish politics, tend to post and debate on threads that.. are about Scottish politics. Who knew ? And you're calling that sad ? Why ? Away you go and post on some other threads if you don't like talking about Scottish things on Scotland based threads. There are plenty more for you to choose from.

A fair few of those who live in Scotland. Were not in the least impressed by the Tory campaign's anti-Scottish tone in order to 'get to Miliband'. It solidified the SNP vote, and that was partly the point of it. The proof was in the pudding on Thursday night ( is that open to interpretation too ? ). But I don't think even the Tories dreamed it would work so well.

And if I'm going to talk plainly then, in short,... the Tory campaign really, really !!!!ed off a lot of Scottish voters. And you can 'interpret' that how you like luv.

I think I may have a wee crush on you

elantan

I didnt vote on Thursday ... along with many people I know ... without exception every single one of us support the SNP ... If we were to have voted it would have been SNP ... 50% of those that did vote and a high % of those that didnt want SNP ...

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
And if I'm going to talk plainly then, in short,... the Tory campaign really, really !!!!ed off a lot of Scottish voters. And you can 'interpret' that how you like luv.

Yes, it probably did hack off a lot of Scottish voters, but as Hamish indicates not all of them by any means. A matter of interpretation then.

Down here the SNP campaign hacked off a lot of English voters. Enough for them to vote in a Tory majority government.

Wow. Who knew

Before Shakey formally closes this thread, may I wish "all" Scots that they get what they seek. Whatever that is. In whatever timescale it is.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch it's time for the UK elected Conservative government to take the hard decisions needed and get this economy back into the black....for the good of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and yes! even Scotland.

Prudent

elantan wrote: »

I didnt vote on Thursday ... along with many people I know ... without exception every single one of us support the SNP ... If we were to have voted it would have been SNP ... 50% of those that did vote and a high % of those that didnt want SNP ...

I know three Scottish people that didn't vote. Two were Tory voters and had to dash away for a couple of days to look after ill relative, the other was too ill herself to vote and wasn't sure which way to vote. The only thing she knew for definite was that it wouldn't have been a vote for the SNP. This statement doesn't make either of us right about which way the vote would have swung if these people had voted. Unless they turned actually voted it is pure speculation.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So, was the Union in 1707 two 'regions' uniting then ?

Well it was a bit more complicated than that because the crowns had united already.

At some point in that 100 years, 2 countries became 2 nations within a single country.

Would you describe Wessex, Mercia, Kent, East Anglia, Sussex, Northumbria and Essex and countries? What about South Wales or should that be Cornwall?

How about Murray and Scotia, Norse and Strathclyde? Should Gaul still be considered a country and how about the Pays d'Oc?

pondskater_2

elantan wrote: »

I didnt vote on Thursday ... along with many people I know ... without exception every single one of us support the SNP ... If we were to have voted it would have been SNP ... 50% of those that did vote and a high % of those that didnt want SNP ...

I am surprised that someone who is apparently very interested in politics and very pro snp would fail to use their vote and that so many other people that you know who ALL support snp didn't vote either. I would be very interested in knowing the thinking behind such a decision or were you all busy that day?

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Well it was a bit more complicated than that because the crowns had united already.

At some point in that 100 years, 2 countries became 2 nations within a single country.

Would you describe Wessex, Mercia, Kent, East Anglia, Sussex, Northumbria and Essex and countries? What about South Wales or should that be Cornwall?

How about Murray and Scotia, Norse and Strathclyde? Should Gaul still be considered a country and how about the Pays d'Oc?

Looking backwards is fraught with difficulty. Isn't politics about looking forwards?

If you wanted to create a more regional sense of government in the UK, my argument would be to create regions of similar size and carrying similar weight.

NE/NW/Wales/Scotland/SW/SE/London/Midlands.

kabayiri

pondskater wrote: »

I am surprised that someone who is apparently very interested in politics and very pro snp would fail to use their vote and that so many other people that you know who ALL support snp didn't vote either. I would be very interested in knowing the thinking behind such a decision or were you all busy that day?

You can't really say we don't have enough choice now either.

This election has seen the widest range of options for a long time. From Green to UKIP to SNP to mainstream etc.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So, was the Union in 1707 two 'regions' uniting then ?

Your knowledge of Scottish history is quite appalling.

I haven't time to compensate for the shocking education system in Scotland : maybe if the SNP spend more money on educating all its citizen and not pumping money into the rich parents and rich graduates then they would have more money available for the proper education of its citizen.

Whilst the history is of importance, the key and current ongoing issue is why are the people of the land mass called Yorkshire treated worse that the people occupying the land mass called Scotland?
The SNP sole and only explanation of the injustice is to say that it is because Scotland is a 'nation'.
That is a nonsense although familiar with nationalistic groups all over the world.

And you are still totally incapable of describing the characteristics of a what you consider a non sovereign nation actually is and why it's people should be treated differently from other people.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I fail to see why the NW is somehow a lesser region than Scotland.

I have never said the NW was a lesser region.........

kabayiri wrote: »

Suppose all of London united behind one party. Would you consider that enough of a mandate to elevate the importance of London over NW or NE or even Scotland?

There are many who consider that politics is already too centric for London and it's not just the SNP.

Take the airport expansion discussion which is going on at the moment.

The debate is whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick, but I also heard this morning that Manchester already has additional capacity for 32 million.

Why is Manchester's capacity not been touted as a viable option?

kabayiri wrote: »

Down this path lies division. It's a retrograde step.

There has been division for a long time kabayiri.
the Scots felt it first and foremost, but other rural areas are starting to sit up now as well.