Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So, assuming that the split between those 36% was 50/50 between those that would have voted for the SNP regardless, and those that would not have voted for the SNP, then the actual unaffected part of the SNP vote is 18%, so that takes us to 49% in total amongst those 1000 or so Scots.

Then there's the Corbyn factor.

Which all shows what precisely? A minority SNP Goverment looming, unable to pursue it's separatist aims?

You spend too much time looking at tea leaves Shakey.

Sleep well.

You'll have to break that down for me. I have no idea what you're referring to ? Holyrood polling for office, or the issue over if people are more or less likely to vote SNP depending on a referendum in their manifesto ?

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Not really. Cameron got a majority. He has the mandate to govern the UK as a whole.

Yes, I wasn't arguing that point. Only that the other poster was saying that having 50% of the vote in Scotland didn't mandate the SNP to put forward their points, particularly regarding Scottish issues, in Westminster.

Either Cameron has a UK mandate to speak for the UK, AND the SNP have a mandate to speak on Scotland's behalf in Westminster ( based on vote share ). Or neither is the case. It's not one or the other.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

I think there too fear to let him out incase he says or does something lol

Glasgow is starting to look busy today, I might head in at some point if I can be bothered, are you going ?

No, it's a bit of a trek for me. But it's got to be a better turnout than that 'Union' rally yesterday. About 10 folks there was it lol.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, I wasn't arguing that point. Only that the other poster was saying that having 50% of the vote in Scotland didn't mandate the SNP to put forward their points, particularly regarding Scottish issues, in Westminster.

Either Cameron has a UK mandate to speak for the UK, AND the SNP have a mandate to speak on Scotland's behalf in Westminster ( based on vote share ). Or neither is the case. It's not one or the other.

SNP MPs have exactly the same rights and powers as any other MP outside the Government and Opposition, in fact rather more as the third largest party.

The SNP doesn't have a mandate to speak for Scotland at Westminster as there isn't a Scottish entity as such in Parliament beyond the Scottish Office.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, I wasn't arguing that point. Only that the other poster was saying that having 50% of the vote in Scotland didn't mandate the SNP to put forward their points, particularly regarding Scottish issues, in Westminster.

Either Cameron has a UK mandate to speak for the UK, AND the SNP have a mandate to speak on Scotland's behalf in Westminster ( based on vote share ). Or neither is the case. It's not one or the other.

The SNP does not have a mandate to speak for Scotland on the matter of Separation. The Referendum trumped the SNP policy on this, but the SNP continue to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people.

On the matter of you not understanding my previous post, re-read it, I'm not repeating it. Watching Rugby is more rewarding than explaining the obvious.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it's a bit of a trek for me. But it's got to be a better turnout than that 'Union' rally yesterday. About 10 folks there was it lol.

Aye I think they counted 7 yesterday lol

The place was very busy today, loads of people coming and going, the bars and eating places heaving ( unlike the orange day when no one opened up) Edinburgh and Inverness was busy as well from what I hear

Was just what I was needing tbh

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But you admit that people were influenced. Nearly 70,000 were.

After all, the SNP are the third largest party now. He can moan and whinge however he likes for 2 questions a week. Scotland voted in order that he does just that.

No I didn't admit that. I said If and a big If, followed by it made no difference to the result. A fact you can't face admitting, along with thousands of other Yes voters. You had your chance and failed.

As for Angus Robetson, glad you admit all he does is moan and whine every week on his 2 questions. At last we are are in agreement over something.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The SNP does not have a mandate to speak for Scotland on the matter of Separation.

Of course they do. If they get a majority at Holyrood. Self-determination is for Scots to decide. Thus the mandate must come from Scottish elections.

The Referendum trumped the SNP policy on this, but the SNP continue to ignore the settled will of the Scottish people.

Then people won't vote for them if it's in their manifesto then will they ? You seem to keep forgetting about the actual electorate when you describe the SNP. People are free to let the SNP know what they think of another referendum via the ballot box. Are you seriously trying to say that the SNP shouldn't be 'allowed' to put the option of another one in their own manifesto ? Why on earth not ? And on what grounds ? ... ( apart from that people might vote for it lol ).

On the matter of you not understanding my previous post, re-read it, I'm not repeating it. Watching Rugby is more rewarding than explaining the obvious.

Enjoy.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

SNP MPs have exactly the same rights and powers as any other MP outside the Government and Opposition, in fact rather more as the third largest party.

The SNP doesn't have a mandate to speak for Scotland at Westminster as there isn't a Scottish entity as such in Parliament beyond the Scottish Office.

But you agree that in Holyrood they actually do then have a mandate to speak for the Scottish people. The same way Cameron has to speak on behalf of the UK ?

Scottish MP's of course, have the same mandate to speak on behalf of their constituents as anyone else. However, McSkinflint is under the impression, that this means.. well, not actually speaking at all.. because it annoys him. Even if they did secure 50% of the vote.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

No I didn't admit that. I said If and a big If, followed by it made no difference to the result. A fact you can't face admitting, along with thousands of other Yes voters. You had your chance and failed.

You said the Vow made absolutely no difference. But it did to numerous voters who cast their vote under a false impression that the Prime Minster, a former Prime Minister and 2 other UK party leaders were offering some real, meaningful.. and I quote 'faster, safer, change'. In fact the March referendum study, that the BBC report alludes to, has a table within it stating 10% were swayed from Yes to No by the the thought of Devo-Max. That's 200,000 voters. The difference between the Yes and No results in fact.

Reasons for switching from Yes to No • Promise of more powers - 10%

• "The promise of devo max which is a transition to home rule”

http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Scottish%20Referendum%20Study%2027%20March%202015.pdf

As for Angus Robetson, glad you admit all he does is moan and whine every week on his 2 questions. At last we are are in agreement over something.

I was being a bit sarcastic.;)

Anyway, all water under the bridge now. I daresay there will be lessons learnt from both sides if there's a 'next time'.