Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - so it seems that there is some sort of skew towards the left in SNP voting patterns. If I understand you correct, you assign recent electoral successes by the SNP to a growing political awareness in Scotland being comfortable with Scottish Independence.

That's a possibility of course, but there may also be personal economic thinking behind it too. Personal economic gain is a powerful force and in times of "austerity" people can put their faith into a new way of doing things, and maybe that is what motivates people to vote for the SNP, namely that maybe austerity would go away if everything was "fairer". That brings on the socialistic side of things.

As you say, it's arguable what these terms mean. Compared with the 3rd world we are all in clover, and probably also compared to Greece; in that context we could well ask "what austerity"? Is it fair that A has more money than B, or is it fair that A is forced to give 50% of what that earn to B? Both A and B can make their own cases.

Whether the SNP can persuade the Scots that they will be better of with indy or not will, I think, lie mainly with the percieved economic reality. The Devolution Settlement will play a big part in that; ultimately it will depend on whether we (all) get good value from the Union and the Nationalist issue, while still there and motivating the SNP, is something around the edges (IMHO of course). The UK Government recognise this, In due, and needs the funding to do it, which is one reason why FFA was never on the cards.

As said many times the SNP counter is to sow division and, do their not-quite-racist whinge project, and to persuade Scots that any increase in living standards is a result of their efforts and not the Union framework.

One of the reasons Corbyn is the biggest 'threat' the the SNP. Is that he articulates a lot of policies that Scots voters would be very happy agreeing with. Within the Union. And the desire for independence in order to gain complete control in order to implement those policies, solely through the SNP and independence.. wouldn't be required.

It's one of the reasons that racism or anti-English feeling, constantly being mentioned in terms of how the SNP has garnered support, is nonsense. It's not about identity or where one happens to be born. It's about policies and 'the vision' on offer. One that the Tories, and more recently Labour have been moving further away from in terms of what 'Scotland wants'. Offer what Scots would like to see ( and have been voting in droves for the last few years ) throughout the UK and independence wouldn't seem so much like the 'only way' to achieve those things. IYKWIM ?

However, that being said Corbyn seems very well liked throughout most Yes/SNP voters as far as I can see. And we wouldn't mind him winning despite the damage he could 'potentially' do to the SNP ( is an unknown). But.. that is in a purely Scottish context.

Whether the Labour party, or England is ready for this kind of shift ( leftwards ) politically by one of it's main political parties is very doubtful indeed at the present time though. So there's a lot of variables there. We'll have to see what September and the Labour leadership contest brings with it.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So what happens if the rest of the UK agree with any verdict, and Scotland doesn't ? In a democracy you can't 'make' one part of a union agree with the other..unless... no.. surely you aren't suggesting.. :eek:

I think you're probably still thinking in very narrow terms, and only thinking of the SNP as a few random annoying politicians. Instead of the...

Constituency votes 902,915 List votes 876,421

...Actual voters who voted for them in 2011, and the 190,000 who voted Yes that didn't. You should widen your views a little. If Scotland wants Devo max, then it will vote for the party that offers it. If it doesn't want Devo max then it won't. What's the problem there ? It's like voting Labour or Tory. You vote for policies you agree with. The SNP is no different. They didn't get where they are by magic ! Scottish voters put them where they are. It's not just down to 60 or so politicians.. Loads of us up here vote for them and in ever increasing numbers over the last 7 years too.

Once you wake up to that. Then you can put your wee 'Referendum would be to agree or not with the Devolution Arrangements' to bed. It's never going to happen. I got over the No vote. You should perhaps start getting over the fact that the SNP are still around and still 'may' be a major factor in May. It's just the way it is. And even if not the SNP, then Scottish Labour might be next to break away from UK Labour and give it a go.

The Scots want more powers. All the polls consistently point that way. It was why Devo-max was taken off the ballot paper in the first place. They knew it would win. Correctly assuming that Independence would be too far a leap. However, even after the referendum.. the Scots still want more powers. QED :- They'll vote for the party offering them. * See recent polls.

It's not rocket science. And it's not the SNP. It's the Scots electorate. Nothing you can do about that really apart from hope another party gets more votes.

Back in 2010 at this time the Scottish polls looked like this :-

Scottish Labour got 41 seats as well.. I don't think the SNP will do any wipeout..6 seats to 40 odd is pie in the sky. But still, it's interesting reading. There's been a change there eh ?

certainly shows that the surge for a pro independence party isn't based on long held convictions or a slow thoughtful process towards independence.

shows a rather hasty and hysterical conversion process which has many historical precedents, not all with happy endings.

however, this gives a wonderful opportunity for the nationalists to seize the moment and to pass sovereignty from the hated English to the much loved Europeans.

best tactics are the morning after the Scots vote for a one party state in May next year: demand an immediate referendum and start civil disobedience (maybe cut off natural gas from the hated english, refuse to process our tax returns, occupy RBS ............ who knows but very exciting times ahead......

scott_lithgows

CLAPTON wrote: »

certainly shows that the surge for a pro independence party isn't based on long held convictions or a slow thoughtful process towards independence.

shows a rather hasty and hysterical conversion process which has many historical precedents, not all with happy endings.

however, this gives a wonderful opportunity for the nationalists to seize the moment and to pass sovereignty from the hated English to the much loved Europeans.

best tactics are the morning after the Scots vote for a one party state in May next year: demand an immediate referendum and start civil disobedience (maybe cut off natural gas from the hated english, refuse to process our tax returns, occupy RBS ............ who knows but very exciting times ahead......

Or we could just get on with our lives until a period of time which should have been determined before the indy ref was held has passed.

Nothing wrong with a political interest surge in Scotland,pity it,s getting taken back to the events of 2014 at every opportunity.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

certainly shows that the surge for a pro independence party isn't based on long held convictions or a slow thoughtful process towards independence.

shows a rather hasty and hysterical conversion process which has many historical precedents, not all with happy endings.

however, this gives a wonderful opportunity for the nationalists to seize the moment and to pass sovereignty from the hated English to the much loved Europeans.

best tactics are the morning after the Scots vote for a one party state in May next year: demand an immediate referendum and start civil disobedience (maybe cut off natural gas from the hated english, refuse to process our tax returns, occupy RBS ............ who knows but very exciting times ahead......

Nah, this has been bubbling under the surface one way or another... 1979 ( referendum, No ), 1997 (referendum, Yes ), 2007( SNP narrowly win Holyrood ), 2011 ( SNP win Holyrood by a landslide ) , 2014 ( referendum, No ), 2015..( SNP win 56 seats in Westminster ) ....either in terms of greater powers for Scotland, or greater numbers of SNP politicians on the scene, for about 40 years.

Can't be bothered entertaining your last few paragraphs.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah, this has been bubbling under the surface one way or another... 1979 ( referendum, No ), 1997 (referendum, Yes ), 2007( SNP narrowly win Holyrood ), 2011 ( SNP win Holyrood by a landslide ) , 2014 ( referendum, No ), 2015..( SNP win 56 seats in Westminster ) ....either in terms of greater powers for Scotland, or greater numbers of SNP politicians on the scene, for about 40 years.

Can't be bothered entertaining your last few paragraphs.

but only a few months ago you were denying the inevitability of another early referendum (understandably as the great leader hadn't told you what to think then)

so start thinking about tactics : that's all that matters now

Mistermeaner

I've had a great idea. Scotland can be the UK' s test bed for social, political and economic experiments. Anything that works rouk can adopt, anything that doesn't....... well never mind it's only scotland

Snp have a March on socialism so we can run that experiment in tandem with some fracking (before we risk the health of England). Would also be a great place to put our nukes in case they a) blow up or b) get attacked.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Not thrown out. Just encouraged to have another referendum.
...

Where is the evidence for this ?

Westminster has not encouraged Wales to have a referendum now that coal isn't a major output.

Westminster has not encouraged NI to seek independence.

It would suggest that the main parties in power in Westminster are actually pro Union, would it not?

This is one of the most successful and longest lasting Unions in the entire world, measured over a period of centuries.

scott_lithgows

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I've had a great idea. Scotland can be the UK' s test bed for social, political and economic experiments. Anything that works rouk can adopt, anything that doesn't....... well never mind it's only scotland

Snp have a March on socialism so we can run that experiment in tandem with some fracking (before we risk the health of England). Would also be a great place to put our nukes in case they a) blow up or b) get attacked.

Worked well with the poll tax,Scotland complained so London rioted,teamwork!

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I've had a great idea. Scotland can be the UK' s test bed for social, political and economic experiments. Anything that works rouk can adopt, anything that doesn't....... well never mind it's only scotland

Snp have a March on socialism so we can run that experiment in tandem with some fracking (before we risk the health of England). Would also be a great place to put our nukes in case they a) blow up or b) get attacked.

it probably would suit a regional group of people with a huge inferiority complex and a vast chip on their shoulder
who conveniently forget that many social innovations have been piloted in many parts of the UK

they would, of course, forget that nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations and research stations and early warning stations were indeed established in England first.

They would also forget that opposition to fracking has already expressed itself in demonstrations in southern England

They would also forget that the experiment of providing 3,000 per Scottish family more than an English family has also been piloted in Scotland which allows them to waste money on funding richer scots at the expense of the poor.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this ?

Westminster has not encouraged Wales to have a referendum now that coal isn't a major output.

Westminster has not encouraged NI to seek independence.

It would suggest that the main parties in power in Westminster are actually pro Union, would it not?

This is one of the most successful and longest lasting Unions in the entire world, measured over a period of centuries.

I agree. Only problem is it needs reforming, and that's not being done properly.