Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scottish MP's of course, have the same mandate to speak on behalf of their constituents as anyone else.

Should SNP MP's speak on behalf of all their constituents, or just those who voted for them.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

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

Am not sure yesterday was quite as busy...

elantan

Aye I think the BBC put it at 2000 yesterday and 45 today :-)

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Should SNP MP's speak on behalf of all their constituents, or just those who voted for them.

Was there a part in my sentence where I said on behalf of 'some' of their constituents. Or are you just imagining it ?

Scottish MP's of course, have the same mandate to speak on behalf of their constituents as anyone else.

More voters in 56 out of 59 constituencies voted for SNP than for any other party. The same way that for Conservative constituencies.. more voters there voted Tory than for any other party. Now while that may mean that the supporters of the other three or four parties within that constituency are disappointed with the result. It's unlikely you'll see *Cameron in Witney ( bar individual/local concerns and problems to deal with ) taking on board wholesale Green policies, just because the Green party have some supporters there.

* True story. I once met David Cameron at one of his surgeries in Witney.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

More voters in 56 out of 59 constituencies voted for SNP than for any other party.

Hmmm. You may have mentioned that previously.

However you can't use that as justification for a second referendum when Nicola specifically stated before the general election "A vote for SNP is not a vote for a second referendum"

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Not credible, but then you really love tea leaves don't you Shakey.

So, let's see if you are with balance on the things which made people vote one way or the other.

How many do you think we're persuaded by claims from the SNP that
--- there would be an oil bonanza
--- Scotland's financial sector would remain
--- Natland would be able to remain in a sterling currency Union
--- Natland would be an immediate shoe-in to the EUROPEAN
--- There would be a massive "windfall" to Natland amounting to about 10% of Assets taken from England
--- Natland would be entitled to 10% of the integrated armed forces of the United Kingdom
--- Natland had no responsibility to repay Scotland's share of the UK's national debt
--- Natland could kick out Trident and nevertheless join NATO.
ion's of which was true (amongst other lies)
--- Natland's finances were in good shape

How many we're persuaded by all that nonsense to vote Yes?

Generali

The amazing bit is that the Nats have stated that they lied and people carry on believing them!

tberry6686

Generali wrote: »

The amazing bit is that the Nats have stated that they lied and people carry on believing them!

Nothing amazing about it really.

There are four types of yes voters.

Those that are naturally nationalist and would vote yes no matter what damage it would do to the country.

Then there are the bandwagon people who see all the publicity given to something and think that it must be the best thing since sliced bread no matter what the evidence says. Otherwise known as the cult of celebrity.

The third group are, to put it mildly, intellectually challenged and don't have a clue about any of the arguments put forward but don't want to admit this so just jump on the same bandwagon as the second group.

The 4th group look at it and think whats best for me (the 4 areas that voted yes the last time fall pretty much in this group. It was interesting to note at the time that all 4 areas had a high benefit claimant rate compared to the norm and the UK government was threatening to cut benefits).

Generali

Is that 4th fact true? Very interesting assuming that it is. Do you have a link so I can read more please?

.string.

Generali wrote: »

Is that 4th fact true? Very interesting assuming that it is. Do you have a link so I can read more please?

I've seen that before too;

See here