Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Apologies for delay in replying, been offline. Elderly dog took I'll suddenly and despite 24 hour care we lost him.

Oh I'm so sorry to hear that. You must be devastated. Sending hugs your way. I know how tough that is to go through...

Your reply was interesting and perhaps is the same journey some have taken, but it's not the same as any other new SNP voter I know.
Nor many others I've spoken to who are of the same opinion as myself.

The ones I know we're all persuaded either by SNP activists or new converts in work bending their ears at very tea break or lunch time, some even going as far as inviting speakers in if policy allowed.

Others were persuaded by friends to attend an SNP public meeting, where in a nutshell Labour etc were bad and SNP and Independence were great. If that didn't work, their friends persuaded them to attend a meeting with a different speaker, eg Business for Scotland ( who to my mind are not what they purport to be), or to attend an outside Yes gathering/March with feel good factor and family activities.

Some were referred to Wings over Crap for the 'truth' or given The Wee Blue Book, an abbreviated version of the discredited White Paper to read to allay fears. once they were persuaded they were then encouraged to get their friends to do the same and so on.My newly converted friend even tried it with me..

What I find incredible is how being part of this SNP 'family' just now is like being in a cool and fashionable cult. People posted with pride that they've just attended an SNP conference or event where Sturgeon or Salmond spoke. To hear the same old rhetoric and vague dogma, over and over again.

Yet ask them to donate a couple of hours every so often for a reputable and deserving local charity and they were too busy or tied up distributing leaflets.

Re Scotland being encouraged to leave the Union when the oil runs out, to me gives the impression you don't place enough value on what this peaceful and successful Union has achieved over the years.

Leaving aside the sharing and historic infighting of small clans etc, Scotland is a strategic area for the defence of this Union. Unlike Salmond who listened to tales of Scottish history and grievances , born during the war, I grew up hearing tales of small countries who declared themselves neutral during World War 2 , but were invaded and occupied anyway if of strategic value. And what happened during those occupations.

While you might think these days are long gone, the future is not known. And while it might not be a good enough reason to stay overall in a Union in your opinion, it's a good enough reason for any UK party of any sense and responsibility to want Scotland to remain in the Union IMO.

I guess many reached their destination re a Yes vote through a myriad of different ways and circumstance. However, is a mistake to make broad brush assumptions about Yes voters as a whole I feel. Any more than it would be to categorise Tory voters as self-serving 'toff's' or whatever. It's no more true of SNP/Yes voters as it is Tory voters and their reasons for voting they way they do.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You don't understand the difference between evidence and conjecture.

You focus on short term politics. Union break up will be measured over decades.

And you ( and Generali it seems ) don't understand that not 'working with the SNP', probably for the next decade or so ( Labour was voted for, despite everything, and Tory govts, for several decades regardless )... is not working with Scotland and it's representatives. You also have no idea how to 'measure' the Union breakup. Because you don't have any more of a crystal ball than I do. Lets not pretend you have.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And you ( and Generali it seems ) don't understand that not 'working with the SNP', probably for the next decade or so ( Labour was voted for, despite everything, and Tory govts, for several decades regardless )... is not working with Scotland and it's representatives. You also have no idea how to 'measure' the Union breakup. Because you don't have any more of a crystal ball than I do. Lets not pretend you have.

Once again you conflate Scotland and the SNP. The Chinese Communist Party does the same as do many fanatical, despotic parties.

You never did answer my point about why anyone in their right mind would go into a coalition with the SNP after what they did the last time.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Once again you conflate Scotland and the SNP. The Chinese Communist Party does the same as do many fanatical, despotic parties.

As far as the SNP and Westminster representation go. The SNP now ARE Scotland. They speak for most it it. Like it or not. I guess that's FPTP for you. I don't need to conflate anything. We're not talking voter %'s. We're talking about 56 MP's out of 59 who represent Scottish constituencies. Pretty much Scotland in a nutshell politically bar a few 'outliers'. :cool:

One party states are when other parties are banned... not when they're just useless. ( I saw that on Twitter today, sums things up nicely re the China/Russia crap ).

You never did answer my point about why anyone in their right mind would go into a coalition with the SNP after what they did the last time.

See above. I'm afraid that any other party leader writing off 'working with' the SNP like Cooper has, is writing off talking to most of Scotland. That's not good for the union. ( which isn't something I'm too worried about obviously, however that doesn't make the principle any different ).

There comes a time Gen, when you have to remember what MP's are actually for. It's not like supporting a football team. They speak for entire geographical/regional areas who voted them in to speak for them, and their interests in UK government. Regardless of which party an MP belongs to. And I didn't mention going into coalition. I said 'work with'.

'Not working' with the SNP as things stand or simply dismissing them. Looks like most of Scotland doesn't get a say in Westminster... ( less than 4000 votes between the other 3 parties MP's would've been a clean sweep of SNP MP's up here).... The SNP will just LOVE proving that to be the case. Cooper saying what she did only helps embed the notion. Though I see Corbyn has no such intentions.

Corbyn can save the Union a little while longer. His meeting up here was booked out a la Sturgeon a few months previously. It remains to be seen if he can swing it in England the way things have gone up here. If he does.. and I have to be honest.. the momentum behind him seems very familiar to us north of the border. The rallies, the voters signing up in droves, the activists enthused.... the media getting what's 'happening on the ground' completely wrong till a few polls come out/then resorting to crap smears/telling people they're idiots/part of a cult/mad/crazy/...

But at least he'll 'work with' the SNP. And may even succeed in toppling them. Nothing else will..

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As far as the SNP and Westminster representation go. The SNP now ARE Scotland. They speak for most it it. Like it or not. I guess that's FPTP for you. I don't need to conflate anything. We're not talking voter %'s. We're talking about 56 MP's out of 59 who represent Scottish constituencies. Pretty much Scotland in a nutshell politically bar a few 'outliers'. :cool:

One party states are when other parties are banned... not when they're just useless. ( I saw that on Twitter today, sums things up nicely re the China/Russia crap ).

See above. I'm afraid that any other party leader writing off 'working with' the SNP like Cooper has, is writing off talking to most of Scotland. That's not good for the union. ( which isn't something I'm too worried about obviously, however that doesn't make the principle any different ).

There comes a time Gen, when you have to remember what MP's are actually for. It's not like supporting a football team. They speak for entire geographical/regional areas who voted them in to speak for them, and their interests in UK government. Regardless of which party an MP belongs to. And I didn't mention going into coalition. I said 'work with'.

'Not working' with the SNP as things stand or simply dismissing them. Looks like most of Scotland doesn't get a say in Westminster... ( less than 4000 votes between the other 3 parties MP's would've been a clean sweep of SNP MP's up here).... The SNP will just LOVE proving that to be the case. Cooper saying what she did only helps embed the notion. Though I see Corbyn has no such intentions.

Corbyn can save the Union a little while longer. His meeting up here was booked out a la Sturgeon a few months previously. It remains to be seen if he can swing it in England the way things have gone up here. If he does.. and I have to be honest.. the momentum behind him seems very familiar to us north of the border. The rallies, the voters signing up in droves, the activists enthused.... the media getting what's 'happening on the ground' completely wrong till a few polls come out/then resorting to crap smears/telling people they're idiots/part of a cult/mad/crazy/...

But at least he'll 'work with' the SNP. And may even succeed in toppling them. Nothing else will..

More fool Corbyn then.

The SNP will do exactly what they did last time. Extract a referendum as the price for joining a coalition and vote down the Government as soon as the referendum is lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_government_of_James_Callaghan

On 1 March 1979 a Referendum on the Scotland Act saw a majority vote for devolution, but a threshold imposed by anti-devolution MPs requiring 40% of the electorate to be in favour was not reached due to low turnout.[4] When the Government refused to implement the Act (per its special threshold legislative clause) the Scottish National Party MPs put down a motion of no confidence.

There is nothing to be gained by Labour or any other party going into coalition with the SNP.

scott_lithgows

Really bored wi indy ref discussion,s but loved the two "one hour later" pics above

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This one is more reflective I feel.

It would seem a shame that the voters in Scotland didn't have a few brews before voting in the referendum.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

More fool Corbyn then.

The SNP will do exactly what they did last time. Extract a referendum as the price for joining a coalition and vote down the Government as soon as the referendum is lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_government_of_James_Callaghan

There is nothing to be gained by Labour or any other party going into coalition with the SNP.

Read that back to yourself again. Only a last minute 'clause' lost that referendum.

On 1 March 1979 a Referendum on the Scotland Act saw a majority vote for devolution, but a threshold imposed by anti-devolution MPs requiring 40% of the electorate to be in favour was not reached

Thatcher would've gotten in anyway. No problems at all. The above just changed the date of the election and brought it forward. Labour were out whatever. First and last time in a UK referendum a 40% clause like that was ever implemented too.

Corbyn is looking to do deals already.

THE shock frontrunner to be Labour leader has vowed to challenge the SNP in Holyrood - but wants their help in Westminster.

JEREMY CORBYN has vowed that Labour would tackle the SNP more effectively in Holyrood under his 
leadership. But the shock frontrunner also admitted he would seek the help of the Nats in tackling David Cameron in Westminster...


..Corbyn vowed to challenge the SNP Government over their record on health, inequality and 
privatisation. But the Islington North MP will look to SNP MPs for support in blocking Cameron’s plans to slash trade union rights and to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-lots-scotland-vows-6222479

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff

Let me save everyone the time and effort:
Unionist press lies
OBR have been told to make scotland look bad by Osborne
Salmond is an oil economist and knows better
Scotland is windy so it doesn't matter anyway.

Next.