Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, I misheard and see that the SNP are polling on 54% of the seats at present, so a lower majority than I used in my earlier posts and much less than Labour had in 1997.

Even further away from the one state b0llocks Clapton is spouting then. .

Maybe he should be talking about how the UK could be classed as a one state country lol

Being rude does not reinforce your argument.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Corbyn if elected leader doesn't necessarily result in all Labour MPs toeing his party line or voting directions. He might get 40% if lucky, plus Diane Abbott naturally. Not forgetting any remaining centrist Labour voters who won't be too happy about a Labour leader working with SNP after the methods and names used against Labour over the past couple of years.

Then Labour will be in a complete shambles with an acute sense of disunity for the next few years. In other words, a completely ineffective opposition. The SNP will make the most of that ( always siding with Corbyn most likely ).. as they did in their first few months in Westminster this year... when Labour proved to be a complete shambles with an acute sense of disunity. If all that means the Tories are a shoo-in for another five years in 2020 ? Then the SNP will be popping the champagne corks and drawing up plans for indy ref 2 round about then too.

Labour voters are the key to any future referendum. Most who voted No last year voted so assuming a UK Labour government in May 15. The prospect of 15 years worth of Conservative government looming large in 2020, solely due to years of Labour in-fighting ?... :eek:

The further left and silly , Corbyn takes his party, the bigger chance longer term SNP voters who originally shifted from Conservative and Lib Dems will drift elsewhere. I don't agree with the view Scotland is this left wing , socialist welfare craving people. With exception of some of the old industry central belt. And neither are many SNP voters I know, some of whom think welfare is pretty generous in UK, and aren't that supportive of all the people claiming illness/ disability etc.

Yes that's right. Which is why I said that Corbyn winning would be the biggest threat to the SNP. Ex-Labour voters tempted back to a unionist party, which for the first time in a long while, reflects their more left-wing views and policies ( for example on Trident, or anti-austerity etc etc ). Left or right doesn't really matter. In Scotland at the moment a fair few vote for the SNP because of their policies, not because of possible independence. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine those people tempted back under a Labour party run by Corbyn.

Even Sturgeon and Salmond are aware of this, which is why several, possibly most of their policy decisions benefit the middle income earners more than the welfare, disadvantaged or low skill/wage group.

You're right. The SNP have walked a fine balancing act over the last few years. And very successfully too. It's a matter of opinion who one thinks has benefited most from those policy decisions.

Do you not think Corbyn is too far left for the SNP party central, other than those who think Tommy Sheridan is a great guy? Would agree he could cause several problems for SNP, because they will be shown up for what they are. But not due Scotland being this socialist , left leaning country. Because that would be much too simplistic a viewpoint.

People vote for policies they like. The SNP get votes because people, particularly those who aren't 'into' politics like perhaps those of us to discuss them here are... people agree with their broad overall policies.

Corbyn and the SNP overlap on a lot of those policies. In Westminster at least it's very easy to see them working together. However, the SNP have one card Corbyn and Labour ( with 1 MP don't have ).. and that's the 'only party standing up for Scotland' narrative. Time will tell though.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
If all that means the Tories are a shoo-in for another five years in 2020 ? Then the SNP will be popping the champagne corks and drawing up plans for indy ref 2 round about then too.
...

What if the Tories meet their manifesto pledge to eliminate the deficit by 2020?

Wouldn't that be cause for celebration from SNP and Labour and LibDems et al?

No UK deficit would mean an independent Scotland would need to borrow less in the early years post independence.

This would be important if oil revenues remain suppressed yes?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

What if the Tories meet their manifesto pledge to eliminate the deficit by 2020?

Wouldn't that be cause for celebration from SNP and Labour and LibDems et al?

No UK deficit would mean an independent Scotland would need to borrow less in the early years post independence.

This would be important if oil revenues remain suppressed yes?

Well there is paying off the deficit. And then there's the means and who suffers most financially doing so. I don't think the Tories are off to a particularly good start with that.

There's far more in politics than just 'the deficit'. No-one is saying it's not important ( or LARGE ).. However, most countries run one. Most people hadn't even heard of anything about deficits or know what one was until 2008. The whole political narrative unfortunately, the deficit seems to have become the 'be all and end all' for the Tories in the last few years. And I'll admit, it wins votes with the whole 'doing the right thing'. But the Tories seem to have little more to offer other than that.

Next April will be a big shock for a lot of ordinary families on tax credits. And it won't be the last big financial shock either, as this probably won't be the last of many cuts to come that affect ordinary families either in the name of 'the deficit'. Imo.. the Tories will go a step too far sooner or later. Too scared to put government money back into anything in case it's viewed as 'spending too much'. And being accused of the very thing they were so opposed to Labour/SNP etc doing.

Sometimes though, it is just the best thing to do. But Osborne seems to have backed himself into just as big as an ideological corner, as other parties have when they promise to spend more. Cracks already showing in terms of the approach to the problem.

Tories blame unemployment’s continuing rise on the SNP and Labour

Jobless numbers unexpectedly rose for the second month in a row by 25,000 to 1.85 million, the Office for National Statistics announced on Wednesday morning.
DWP minister Justin Tomlinson took to Sky News to downplay the rise and argued that the bad economic news was the fault of the opposition parties and not the Government.

....Unemployment in Scotland, where the SNP govern, also bucked the UK trend and fell - casting doubt on the ministers claims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-blame-unemployments-continuing-rise-on-the-snp-and-labour-10451248.html

Pass the buck time, and a bit of a crappy excuse to be honest.

Generali

As with monthly changes in house prices, monthly changes in unemployment are generally just noise:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_412021.pdf

For example, for April to June 2015, the estimated change in the number of unemployed people since January to March 2015 was an increase of 25,000, with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 81,000. This means that we can be 95% certain the actual change in unemployment was somewhere between an increase of 106,000 and a fall of 56,000, with the best estimate being an increase of 25,000.

As the estimated increase in unemployment of 25,000 is smaller than the confidence interval of 81,000, the estimated increase in unemployment is said to be “not statistically significant”.

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Being rude does not reinforce your argument.

LOL, my argument did not need reinforcing

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, my argument did not need reinforcing

LOL'ing doesn't really help much either.

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

LOL'ing doesn't really help much either.

It's a way of expressing that your post made me chuckle.

Don't take any offence by it.

P.S. Me chuckling at your post is in no way a reflection of my points need for reinforcing either.

Have a great day.

Mistermeaner

Wrong thread

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Wrong thread

It is, isn't it.