Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Sapphire wrote: »

For those that argue that the Conservatives alarmed the English in particular by 'stoking up English nationalism' with some kind of anti-SNP/Labour stance, they did not do that in my view.

Nicola Sturgeon's remarkably hostile rhetoric very obviously did that all on its own. I do not think that the majority of the English welcome the sort of sectarianism that Sturgeon and Salmon advocate – particularly in view of how sectarianism is currently operating in countries in the Middle East (for example). I also think that many people in other parts of the UK object to the fact that Scotland receives preferential treatment over the rest of the Kingdom (I think at the expense of British taxpayers), and they were concerned that should the SNP enter into some kind of pact with labour, this problem would be intensified.

Thankfully, common sense prevailed, and hopefully this government will ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom is treated fairly.

Yesˋ it was clear that Stureon's overtly hostile outbursts had some influence not the major one because there were other factors but important in a close run election.

It was clear that the SNP who were expected to gain a significant number of seats (a dominant kingmaker as Shakey was boasting about) would be likely to cause a chaotic sitution for Labour. English Nationalism had little to do with it (if any at all), anti-SNP maybe but the main thing was the horror of electing a weak, vulnerable, Government unduly influenced by a self-seeking party indifferent to the health of the UK.

Of course Cameron or the Tories are not anti-Scottish - that is merely one of the series of pathetic lies intertwined with hate-spin that the SNP promulgates.

We have to be careful, though, not to let the SNP's divisionary tactics achieve the result they crave for.

Anyway, the results are done and we will see how it goes.

Shakey's muddled explannation of how the SNP will approach any disussions with the UKGovernment speaks volumes (the approach is to cry "ant-Scottish at the least "provocation" and we've seen how precious an SNP acolyte can be when they are intent on being offended). It's a childish game and will be made to look as such if the UK Government do their work properly.

Mind you, and I don't see the Tories. being much good at this with their new-found majority, Scottish matters need a sound UK consensus to resolve them; a lot of responsbility also lies on the shoulders of the new Labour Leader if he/she arrives in time to make a difference.

In the meantime we all have to make sure that the pro Union side of Scotland are engaged and consulted, and visible to the UK population at large.

kabayiri

Voltaire7 wrote: »

...
The SNP are far more representative of the electorate than the Conservatives are; that's indisputable.

:rotfl:

Indisputable?

Total rubbish more like.

There was no SNP representation in almost 600 seats.

If they want UK wide representation then they should campaign seats UK wide.

Until then, they are just a regional party. That's indisputable.

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

:rotfl:

Indisputable?

Total rubbish more like.

There was no SNP representation in almost 600 seats.

If they want UK wide representation then they should campaign seats UK wide.

Until then, they are just a regional party. That's indisputable.

I was talking about SNP representation in Scotland, just like the post I was responding to was.

I'm sorry you got so easily confused.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

...
In the meantime we all have to make sure that the pro Union side of Scotland are engaged and consulted, and visible to the UK population at large.

As we deal with the deficit, and the economy continues to recover, so will the economic outlook everywhere. Not just down here.

Reasonable Scots will know we have to take tough decisions sometimes for the long term good.

kabayiri

Voltaire7 wrote: »

...
I'm sorry you got so easily confused.

Don't post such drivel then. It's down to you to make it clear what you mean.

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

Don't post such drivel then. It's down to you to make it clear what you mean.

Read the post I was responding to. I even quoted it.

You knee-jerked and made a fool of yourself. That's nothing to do with me.

Your balls-up does not change the fact that 24% of the UK voted Consevative and 35% of Scotland voted SNP.

Try not to throw around abuse because you don't like the facts

kabayiri

There is one really important fact out of all of this.

Tory majority. Indisputable.

Much more relevant than this 24% / 35% b*ll**ks.

I love facts

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

There is one really important fact out of all of this.

Tory majority. Indisputable.

Much more relevant than this 24% / 35% b*ll**ks.

I love facts

Unfortunately both Hamish and I were talking about the representation of the Scottish electorate.

You jump in, make an !!!! of it, then claim it didn't really matter anyway. Just makes you look a bit daft.

ruggedtoast

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.

Tbf you spent two years and hundreds of posts over on the Scottish referendum thread telling us all that we didn't understand Scotland and there was a big Yes vote coming.

You turned out to be comprehensively wrong in just about everything you predicted so it's not that surprising that people aren't taking much notice of you now.

Don't feel like you have to stick around if the thread doesn't run its course as soon as you would like.

.string.

From today's London Times it is reported that the Government will be going ahead with the Smith Report proposals straight away, with their proposals for implementation being a key part of the Queen's Speech. There are some that think the current proposals are too much and some that they are too little. In that respect Mundell, the new Scottish Secretary, stated that the when the Bill reached the floor of the house there would be an opportunity for amendments to be submitted. Referring to those now asking for new inclusions in the Bill he said (not direct quote) that those individuals had the opportunity to make their views known while the Smith Commision was ongoing but chose not to.

So it's put up or shut up time.

As opposed to developing a new framework and then submitting it to Parliament, this is a good approach as far as I am concerned, as it helps to avoid the adoption of additional items from the SNP wishlist without a commensurate rebalancing of other aspects. The approach also avoids a lot of the haggling which would cause delay.

A more radical approach, e.g. Federal, can wait.

I don't expect the SNP to like this (a major plus point as far as I'm concerned), but that is too bad. The SNP avoided discussion on FFA (on fact withdrew it as a proposal) during the Smith discussions, so reintroducing it now would be a major addition to the conclusions reached and unlikely to be even half accepted without major drop off in other areas. Serves them right for trying to be too smart).

Things will warm up quickly I think; I look forward to some outraged squeaking from you-know-who.