Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

MumOf2 wrote: »

The SNP DO NOT speak for Scotland, they just speak for SNP voters, that's all.

Of which there was a majority in Scotland for the SNP this election.

The Conservatives don't speak for the UK with 36%
Labour don't speak for the UK with 30%
and so on

In Scotland, the SNP attained 50.4%, so they do represent the MAJORITY of Scotland in line with this election.

But more than that, they have clearly stated that they also want to represent the electorate who did not vote for them

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

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

Well there's a lot of people (not just Scots) who acknowledge that Cameron stirred up English Nationalism

Miliband accuses Cameron of trying to stir up English hatred of Scots

The Scots don;t hate the English, why does the UK Leader want to stir up hatred towards the Scots.

Maybe he's been tipped of by the many posted in here who repeatedly bring up hatred between our two nations, whilst the SNP and Scots are only offering hands of friendship

Even ex-Tories have critisized Cameron as taking “a short-term and dangerous view which threatens the integrity of our country”.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/election-2015/63416/tory-grandee-attacks-cameron-for-talking-up-the-snp#ixzz3ZupslBvb

Tory grandee attacks Cameron for ‘talking up’ the SNP

IveSeenTheLight

Jason74 wrote: »

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.

Lets be clear, Labour lost both in Scotland and in England.

You are also correct in that Cameron stoked up an English Nationalism in order to succeed in this election.

I absolutely abhor negative campaigning and this we would have a much more progressive country and forward thinking if we moved on from this.

Unfortunately, as verified by this election, fear and scaremongering wins over the electorate

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Just for the absence of any doubt:

- Nation. A group of people with a shared characteristic or characteristics. Examples could be geographical (Scottish Nation, Arab Nation) or another tribal affiliation (Gay Nation, Zulu Nation).
- Country. A sovereign body with defined borders.

Scotland is a nation that some people want to turn into a country.

And for further absence of doubt, according to the Oxford Dictionary

1.1 (the country) The people of a nation:
the whole country took to the streets

Therefore the people of the nation make up the country.

Regardless, if you dismiss Scotland as a Country, then England also cannot be identified as a country.

I'm not a cricket fan and could be done without all this Peterson talk, so if there is no England, then the English Cricket Team can abandon then

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

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

Spot on...

,. 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.

There is little doubt the SNP success in Scotland handed Cameron a majority, had it not been for that, another hung parliament was the likely outcome.

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.

Vote SNP get Tory....

Maybe we should start calling them the 'Yellow Tories"...:rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

F

And how many times Shakey...

The SNP and their supporters are not representative of the 5 million that live here, only 35% of the electorate voted for them.

For gods sake Hamish, you love to spin the figures don't you.
A Proportion of the 5 million you cite aren't eligible to vote.

Of those that did vote 50.4% voted for the SNP.

By your reconning, we are governed by a party that approx 84% of the country did not vote for

IveSeenTheLight

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?

In Scotland, the turnout was in the low 70's%.

In England, it was low to mid 60's%

I'm sure we can agree that those that did turn out were representative of the will of the electorate

If not, then you really should encourage those not voting to exercise their right.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Isn't politics about looking forwards?

Wouldn't that be refreshingly insightful.

I fully expect the Conservatives to still be talking about the previous Labour administration, deficit and debt in 2020

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I haven't time to compensate for the shocking education system in Scotland

Best knock on Her Maj's door and tell her to stop sending the Royals to Scotland for their education then

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Well there's a lot of people (not just Scots) who acknowledge that Cameron stirred up English Nationalism
...

Cameron was playing Labour more than the SNP is my argument.

It might have been seen as risky, or stirring things, but it was clever politicking which seems to have worked.

Ed had to distance himself from a national party he had been campaigning against just a matter of months before. If he didn't there would have been the accusation that he wasn't the true leader.

You could argue that the fact that Cameron had little to lose north of the border was the real problem. It's weird - for a UK election it had a lot of mixed motivations.